Today’s newsletter is brought to you by: Assured

Assured manages provider credentialing, payer enrollment, licensing, and renewals end to end. Its platform prepares and submits applications, tracks status, and handles payer follow-up while giving ops teams one place to manage the work. 

With Assured, Birches Health scaled from 10 to 800 providers in under a year, expanded by 40 states, and cut credentialing processing times by up to 75%. Learn more.

If you're interested in sponsoring the newsletter, let us know!

Q2 EARNINGS SEASON

Q2 earnings season kicks off with UHG and Elevance earnings; HCA pre-releases

Three big notable earnings-related updates from this week as Q2 earnings season kicks off:

  • HCA was down 8% on the week after it pre-empted earnings with an 8-K noting payer mix headwinds due to ACA/uninsured shifts, sending the hospital sector down ~5% early in the week.

  • UHG was roughly flat after its stock briefly jumped ~8% as it continued its recovery and raised earnings guidance, buoyed by positive medical trend in MA and the turnaround in Optum Health.

  • Elevance was down 11% after it managed to disappoint Wall St even while raising earnings guidance, citing the potential for additional Medicaid exits, which dominated the earnings call. More on this below.

I’d hazard a guess that those three results provide a pretty good overview of where we’d expect Q2 earnings to net out across the payers and providers — it seems like we’re in an environment that sets up well for the payers and VBC providers, and poorly for the health systems. A few of the key questions beyond that which we’ll be keeping an eye on in the remainder of earnings calls:

  • What is Elevance up to in signaling Medicaid market exits?
    One of the most befuddling parts of earnings this week was Elevance proactively telling Wall Street it expects to exit additional Medicaid markets beyond the previously announced D.C. exit, but then providing no detail on the scope of potential exits. Elevance has long indicated that 2026 would be the trough year for Medicaid, with margin improvement expected in 2027+, which would seem to imply that things are on the upswing. Elevance also indicated on the call that performance seems good: Medicaid rates are coming in favorable to expectations, acuity shifts are in line, and utilization, while high, is also in line. Adding to the unease is that analysts asked at least three separate times in the Q&A for clarity on what the magnitude of exits may be, and Elevance leadership never answered the question. It seems like an odd strategic decision to ride the market down to -1.75% margins and then announce unspecified market exits as the market rebounds. Elevance reiterated its commitment to Medicaid broadly, but the move naturally invites questions about how much volatility there is in specific market performance. It’ll be interesting to track how Centene and Molina describe this market dynamic.

  • How does the divergent narrative around commercial trend play out? Elevance presented a bullish narrative on the commercial market, noting that the trend was elevated but in line with expectations and that the customer pipeline is quite strong. Elevance noted that it is seeing a pattern in which customers who left over the past few years are now returning, which is an interesting observation on the momentum it has in commercial. UHG’s update on the commercial business highlighted a higher-than-expected commercial trend number, running north of the 11% trend it anticipated. This persistently high trend is pushing out UHG’s margin recovery target in commercial of getting back to 7%+ margins further out past 2027. It called out the No Surprises Act IDR process as a key part of that trend increase, accounting for 0.5% in the quarter and 1% of costs overall. UHG also noted it is seeing aggressive billing practices and higher cost per encounter in the FFS-dominated commercial market. The IDR process was a surprisingly large part of the conversation on the UHG call as an analyst asked a follow-up question on it, and perhaps equally as surprising, I don’t think Elevance referenced it once. As the national conversation about the costs of commercial healthcare intensifies, it’ll be worth keeping an eye on this trend narrative, both during earnings season and beyond.

  • Early returns on ACA don’t seem death spiral-y
    Just last week, we were discussing a WSJ report suggesting the ACA market is in a bad spot, with payers requesting double-digit rate increases for 2027, presented as evidence that the market is experiencing something resembling a death spiral. HCA, Elevance, and UHG certainly don’t seem to give that impression. Elevance and UHG both noted that ACA trend is performing as expected, with Elevance suggesting the risk pool appears aligned with its assumptions. HCA noted its payer mix shift from ACA to uninsured has had a larger-than-expected negative impact, which would seem to imply this wasn’t just healthy non-utilizers (or fraudulent enrollees) leaving the exchanges, as HCA is seeing them show up as uninsured. It all seems to indicate, similar to the commercial conversation, a functioning market responding to an incredibly inflationary cost environment.

  • How does the 2026 outperformance in MA set up for 2027, particularly for Humana?
    I’d imagine we’ll see Humana take a victory lap on its earnings call given the questions it faced early in the year about its influx of new membership. If Humana’s stock performance is any indication, it has moved past those questions — if you bought Humana stock in March at its low point of $165, you’d have returned 144% over the last three months. 2026 seems to be shaping up well for MA plans, and the questions now turn to 2027 and how plans are balancing margin and growth. Humana’s talk track will be worth paying particular attention to, as it has recently shifted its narrative sharply towards margin recovery. In an HTN conversation with Sam Melamed last week, we discussed how early broker readouts suggest that most large payers are aiming to be #2 in the MA market in 2027 in terms of benefit richness. Given the relative starting points of various plans, if everyone is aiming to be #2 in a market, it seems likely that Humana will end up remaining #1 more often than not.

  • How do the hospitals navigate the variety of headwinds they’re facing? In addition to the unfavorable ACA payer mix shift HCA called out, HCA noted a decline in surgical volumes. This resulted in it revising guidance downward for the year, even while it saw a $400 million incremental benefit from the Medicaid Supplemental Payment Program decision in Florida. Both Elevance and UHG were asked questions about whether they’re noticing softness in surgical volumes, with neither reporting a slowdown similar to HCA. HCA is now down 20% year-to-date, and it will be worth keeping an eye on how other hospital operators navigate the various headwinds here.

AI

The race to be the #1 AI Clinical Decision Support tool continues

The epic battle between Doximity and OpenEvidence to win the clinical decision support market took some interesting turns this week.

Source: HTN analysis; LinkedIn; DOCS financials; The Information reporting

Both OpenEvidence and Doximity took to LinkedIn touting the results of a recent report by Stanford’s ARISE Lab as definitive proof that they are #1 in the market. As a bit of an aside, it seems like a genius PR strategy by ARISE to share visuals with various vendors about where they came in first… I’m not sure what else would explain mortal enemies posting the same visuals. Doximity won on an accuracy measure, while OpenEvidence won on being the tool physicians choose. It’s a bit odd to see that 0% of physicians reported choosing Doximity. I get that Doximity may not be the flavor of the day, but surely it can’t be the case that 0% of doctors prefer Doximity, right?

On Friday night, The Information reported that OpenEvidence has turned down a $200 million funding offer at a $20 billion valuation, as the founders and other shareholders apparently opted against further dilution. OpenEvidence has also reportedly been in acquisition discussions with a “large tech company”. It all seems indicative of the momentum OpenEvidence currently has in the market and how Doximity is now playing a game of catch-up. It seems like a reasonable bet that we’ll see a massive acquisition of OpenEvidence in the not-too-distant future, which will probably cement its status in public opinion as the winner here, regardless of which tool is more technically proficient.

I’m keeping my fingers crossed that a potential large tech company acquirer is a public company, so we can at least get a fairness opinion on a deal and see some financial projections for OpenEvidence. It’d be fascinating to be a fly on the wall in those corp dev conversations — choosing to acquire $300 million of revenue at a 60x+ multiple versus $670 million of revenue at a 6x multiple is not a decision I would make in this scenario, but I understand the FOMO dynamic at play, and AI companies seem to be rewriting the book on core valuation principles lately.

MARTIN’S POLICY CORNER

The Physician Fee Schedule

(note: this section comes to you from our resident policy nerd, Martin Cech)

Earlier this week, CMS released the 2027 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule Proposed Rule, a ~1600-page document, and it would be incredibly reductive to say “this is what the proposed rule means for the future of healthcare.” It’s a sprawling technical document which includes, for example:

But what’s captured my attention as I’ve plodded through the gargantuan document and its appendices, waded into thoughtful discussions in this 83-comment-deep thread on the subject in Slack, and skimmed chatter on social media is the discontent, especially among providers, over the way CMS is proposing to tweak the funding formula.

“A budget is a statement of priorities” is something people like to say around D.C., and while the PFS proposed rule isn’t technically a budget so much as an ingredient to a set of complicated formulas that dictate how providers are reimbursed, the same is also true.

The way Medicare physician reimbursement works, at a very high, very schematic level, is that a dollar amount, called the conversion factor, is multiplied by Relative Value Units, which are allocated across all the possible procedures and services that Medicare pays for. CMS says this service or procedure is worth a certain amount of RVUs, and that amount of RVUs is multiplied by the conversion factor; this year proposed to be ~$33, and voila, that’s what CMS pays for that service or procedure.

CMS isn’t pulling the conversion factor out of thin air. Congress passed a law in 2015 called MACRA, which mechanically updates the conversion factor every year; the only tool CMS has is to shuffle the allocation of RVUs, which needs to be more or less budget-neutral. The shuffle is a zero-sum game; if CMS wants to spend more money on clinical social workers or primary care, that money must come from another set of providers.

It’s an incredibly blunt instrument for making healthcare policy, but over the past few years, in both the Biden and Trump administrations, CMS has used it to shift Medicare spending, generally, from procedures to services like talk therapy and primary care. In this year’s proposed rule, the tweaks continue an efficiency adjustment for more non-time-based, procedural codes and the final year of a 4-year upward adjustment for talk therapy. CMS models the impact, and clinical social workers (+12%) and psychologists (+11%) are getting the biggest increases, while dermatologists (-9%) and ENTs (-9%) are getting the fuzzy end of the lollipop.

Mostly, everyone agrees we should better compensate behavioral health and primary care providers. The challenge this year for dermatologists and ENTs, in particular, is that even if they agree with the sentiment, it is coming out of their paychecks. Congress could boost the funding formula, but that means higher taxes or more national debt. As a society, we’d like to prioritize behavioral and primary care, but someone has to pay, and we’d all prefer it wasn’t us.

COMPANY PRESENTATION

Cadence’s Company Update

On Thursday afternoon, Cadence’s co-founder and CEO Chris Altchek joined me for a company update, a few weeks after the company announced a $100 million Series C. He provided a great overview of where Cadence is today, where it’s headed, and how he sees AI-powered care delivery helps solve the key constraint that American healthcare faces today in clinical labor supply. It’s a fascinating vision to hear about how PCPs will delegate care delivery to FDA-cleared agents supervised by clinicians, as highlighted in this slide below:

A few of my big takeaways from the session:

  • Cadence has reached an impressive scale in the remote monitoring world, reporting $61 million of ARR as of January 2026, which it expects to grow to $135 million in January 2027. It’s treating 100,000 patients today through partnerships with 20 health systems, and expects to reach 1 million patients by expanding the number of health systems from 20 to ~90 and increasing physician adoption among its customers from 5% to ~10%. We talked a fair amount about the go-to-market strategy in what I’d imagine is a customer base whose attention is pulled in a number of strategic directions, given all the headwinds health systems are facing. In some ways, the financial headwinds for hospitals could/should make this concept more appealing as a key lever in rotating towards more inpatient commercial volume.

  • Cadence has one of the more tangible clinical AI use cases I’ve heard to date. Chris describes how it has built an alert triage agent, a voice AI agent that calls patients after a concerning reading. Average response time for the Cadence pre-AI agent was 90 minutes; it’s down to 3.5 minutes with the AI agent. We discussed how seniors reacted to speaking with an AI agent, and Chris shared that it expected an opt-out rate of 2% - 3%, but it’s now 0.18% over the last 45 days (on ~45,000 calls). Chris attributes that comfort with speaking to voice AI to how it integrates into Cadence’s overall offering, providing instant feedback to the individual as part of an offering from their provider.

  • We chatted about the potential RPM changes proposed in the Physician Fee Schedule, noting that Cadence agrees with the goal of eliminating waste in RPM, but that the challenge is not throwing out the baby with the bathwater, and distinguishing between low-quality RPM and meaningful clinical programs. Cadence noted that any changes would have a relatively small impact on its business given it has expanded across a number of programs, i.e. CCM and APCM.

We covered lots more ground in the presentation and Q&A; members can check it out here.

Upcoming HTN Conversations:

Funding Announcements

  • Corner Health, an NP enablement model, raised a $25 million Series A, led by Oak HC/FT. The Oak HC/FT investment thesis is well worth a read, as it does a nice job articulating the rationale and current state of Corner. It highlights some impressive data for Corner: it operates 70 provider-owned practices in Washington and Arizona today, claims to be the fastest-growing primary care network in both markets, and has 1,000 NPs on a waitlist. Corner’s model centers on an AI-centric OS that allows a practice to operate with zero admin staff, with 90% of clinics operating with no staff other than practicing NPs. This all allows NPs to spend 2x - 3x as much time with patients as industry averages, while also making $30k to $80k more than employed NPs annually. The combination of all of those data points strikes me as really impressive, and I’m excited to keep track of Corner’s progress from here.

  • Neko Health, a longevity clinic model centered around health scans, raised $700 million at a $7 billion valuation. Lightspeed Venture Partners led the round, which comes ahead of Neko’s planned US launch. It currently operates eight clinics in the UK and Sweden, and will open its first clinics in NYC and other US cities this year. A LinkedIn post by Neko’s founder hints at the broader aspirations for Neko, with the health scan becoming its first product as Neko rethinks the “healthcare stack” across devices, sensors, AI, software, clinical protocols, and clinics.

    • By my math, Neko is likely at an ARR somewhere around $35 million — for argument’s sake, assume 8 clinics, 30 scans a day, 365 days a year, $400 per scan = $35m. I’d imagine the clinics aren’t actually open 365 days a year, but you get the picture. This math would imply a revenue multiple of 200x.

    • I’d love to see the underwriting case for Lightspeed in leading this round and what Neko’s future margin profile looks like as the leading preventive health provider in the US. The conceptual appeal of the vision is obvious, but so are the challenges in expanding from the early adopters here to the general population. Flame-outs by several other companies with big visions to reinvent healthcare provide ample reason to be skeptical here, including Forward Health, Carbon Health, and Babylon Health. Perhaps now is the time to try this bet again, given consumer sentiment around wellness, technological changes, and the emerging “patients as payers” trend, and I’d imagine that is what the underwriting case centers upon thematically.

    • While Midjourney and Neko Health attempt to build out consumer brands in this longevity / preventive health market, I’d personally be much more optimistic about a more medical-device-y play in this market that enables others to build out consumer brands, assuming these next-gen scanners actually work. In the consumer health market, Neko is worth roughly what Hims is today, despite having $2+ billion less in annual revenue. Meanwhile, I look at the outcomes for companies like Cologuard and Intuitive Surgical, and I personally know which path I’d go down here. I remain intrigued by Butterfly Network for that reason.

  • BunkerHill Health, an agentic AI platform for health systems, announced a $25 million Series B and $55 million in total funding. Khosla Ventures led the Series B, and Sequoia Capital, Felicis, Optum Ventures, and Y Combinator are also among an impressive group of investors here. The Fortune coverage of this funding round addressed the question on everyone’s mind related to this market: another agentic AI platform for health systems? BunkerHill’s investors seem to be betting that its early customer traction is a good indicator that BunkerHill is the winning platform play here, and the early list of health system customers it has amassed certainly appears really impressive: Mayo Clinic, Cleveland Clinic, and Intermountain are all cited as customers. It all leaves me extremely curious how health systems are actually evaluating and using these platforms against each other these days.

    • The client roster and numbers here would seem to indicate that BunkerHill has relatively small implementations with those customers — a $25m Series B implies a valuation of around $250 million (assuming 10% dilution for a competitive round). Assuming an astronomical revenue multiple (100x?) that seems common for an early-stage AI company with top VCs, that would imply BunkerHill is around $2.5 million of ARR. BunkerHill notes it has 15 health systems as clients, which would put its revenue per health system around $166k annually. Those numbers seem indicative of the current state of the market and the foothold startups are trying to gain in these brand-name systems. It also hints at the race afoot to become the organization that wins the presumably much larger ACV deals as a true platform partner.

Featured Jobs

Chief Financial Officer at Oshi Health, a virtual gastrointestinal care provider.
$275K - $350K | Remote

Partner Success Manager at Float Health, an on-demand nursing network for specialty pharmacy home infusion.
$120K - $138K | Remote

Catalyst Health Group, a primary care enablement platform, is hiring for the following roles:

Analytics Engineer at Ursa Health, a healthcare analytics company.
$160K - $180K | Remote

Director, Patient Engagement & Retention at Cadence, a clinical AI platform for chronic care management.
$180K - $220K | Remote

Contact us to feature roles in our newsletter.

What I’m Reading

A consensus appears to be emerging that without significant changes to financial incentives in healthcare, AI will increase spending. This thesis came up twice this week, first in an NEJM Catalyst article in which Bob Kocher, Brian Zhao, and Erin Duffy argued that new policy and reimbursement levers will be needed for AI to slow spending, and perhaps the goal should be to “bend the cost curve” and reduce the rate of spending growth versus reducing spending altogether.

Also this week, PHTI shared a report highlighting findings from a workshop discussion looking at clinical applications of AI for hypertension management. It suggested that current payment approaches — FFS, pay-for-performance, or capitation — all have limitations for AI, instead suggesting that we need to think about a new deflationary payment mechanism tied to results. As the report notes, CMMI’s ACCESS model is a step in this direction.

I find it curious to juxtapose this emerging consensus around AI needing new outcomes-based payment frameworks with the general skepticism the industry has expressed towards ACCESS, i.e. see the Venrock survey data last week suggesting 23% of industry leaders think ACCESS will enable fraud at scale with companies duping seniors. If I’m making policy at CMMI right now, I’m yelling at my computer screen. It reminds me a bit of my life as a long-suffering Minnesota sports fan; you can’t help but keep cheering in the face of countless heartbreaking losses, because this is the year we’re going to get LeBron and win it all. Deep down I know LeBron is never going to come here, but I have hope!

Other Headlines From the Week

A roundup of other headlines we covered in our daily newsletter for Pro members

  • Warburg Pincus acquired Pantherx Rare for $7b+.

  • K Health wins another health system partnership, launching virtual primary care appointments with Novant, along with “PatientGPT”.

  • Claritev (fka Multiplan) traded down on news that the DOJ antitrust investigation is expanding in scope.

  • GE Healthcare announced a 10-year, ~$500 million partnership with Catholic Health.

  • MSK VBC player TailorCare expanded into Georgia.

  • Our analysis of 2024 ACO REACH results suggests smaller, independent groups performed better.

  • A judge has granted a preliminary injunction blocking parts of the ACA 2027 Payment Notice final rule.

  • Senate Republicans blocked an effort to end CMMI’s WISeR program.

  • Eli Lilly made a strategic investment in Oura.

  • TytoCare raised $25 million.

  • Chai Discovery raised $400 million at a $3.8 billion valuation.

Want to comment or share feedback?

Login or Subscribe to participate

If this newsletter was forwarded to you, subscribe here or see more from Health Tech Nerds.

Reply

Avatar

or to participate