Early, Aggressive BP Lowering Tied to Better ICH Outcomes
Initiating intensive blood pressure (BP) lowering within a few hours of intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) was associated with better neurologic outcomes, fewer serious adverse events, and better mortality compared to the more conservative standard treatment, new research confirmed.
Best results were found when treatment was administered within 3 hours of ICH symptoms, a pooled analysis of the four Intensive BP Reduction in Acute Cerebral Hemorrhage Trials (INTERACT1-4) showed.
While current guidelines set a target systolic BP of < 180 mm Hg within 1 hour of ICH symptom onset, the intensive treatment systolic target is < 140 Hg within 1 hour.
The new findings were published online on June 18 in The Lancet Neurology .
Timing Dependent?
In addition to evaluating the safety and efficacy of early intensive treatment for ICH, the investigators also aimed to assess the impact of treatment timing.
The INTERACT1-3 studies included 10,269 adults with acute ACH who presented within 6 hours of symptom onset and had a systolic BP of > 150 mm Hg.
INTERACT4 included 1043 patients with suspected acute stroke who had a systolic BP of ≥ 150 mm Hg within 2 hours of symptom onset. In addition, 1029 study participants had a hemorrhagic form of stroke.
All were randomly assigned to receive either intensive or guideline recommended BP-lowering treatment with locally available BP drugs within 1 hour.
Scores on the modified Rankin scale were used to determine functional recovery, the primary outcome measure for the pooled analysis.
Additionally, a CT substudy of nearly 3000 INTERACT participants was conducted to measure hematoma volume.
Mean systolic BP rates at 1 hour were significantly lower for the intensive treatment group compared to the guideline group (149.6 mm Hg vs 158.8 mm Hg, respectively; P < .0001).
Poor physical function, defined as a modified Rankin scale score of 3-6 at the end of follow-up, was significantly less likely after intensive BP lowering (odds ratio [OR], .85; P = .0001).
The intensive group also had reduced odds of neurologic deterioration within 7 days compared to the guideline group (OR, .76; P = .0002), as well as lower odds of any serious adverse event (OR, .84; P = .0003) or death (OR, .83; P = .002).
CT substudy results showed no significant effect on either relative or absolute hematoma growth in the first 24 hours from intensive vs guideline treatment.
However, when intensive BP lowering was initiated within 3 hours of symptom onset, functional recovery was improved and hematoma growth was reduced in almost 25% of the patients with serial CT scans, investigators noted.
Patients with mild-to-moderate severity, as measured by ICH scores, had even greater reductions in hematoma growth after early intensive BP-lowering treatment.
The new pooled analysis of all four INTERACT trials confirms findings from INTERACT4, presented at the 2024 European Stroke Organization Conference Annual Meeting and reported by Medscape Medical News .
'Time Is Brain'
In an accompanying editorial, David J. Werring, PhD, Department of Translational Neuroscience and Stroke, University College London Queen Square Institute of Neurology, London, noted that several previous studies showed no benefit of BP lowering in acute ischemic stroke, 'probably because acutely elevated blood pressure has a role in maintaining brain perfusion.'
However, the pathophysiology of stroke from ICH 'is different, with a major role for hematoma expansion within the first few hours, a therapeutic target which might be reduced' by intensive BP lowering, he wrote.
Still, Werring noted that possible benefits need to be weighed against possible risks; and he pointed out several study limitations, such as the low severity of ICH overall and the inclusion of INTERACT3 data, which may have introduced confounding from BP lowering being just one component of its treatment 'bundle,' alongside strict glucose control and anticoagulant reversal.
'Notwithstanding these important limitations, the data presented make a compelling case for ultra-early intensive blood pressure reduction as a potentially useful intervention to improve outcomes in people with acute ICH,' he wrote, adding that more research is needed.
'Meanwhile, the clear message from this meta-analysis is that earlier treatment is better, meaning that, once again, time is brain for patients with ICH,' Werring concluded.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Medscape
12 minutes ago
- Medscape
BMJ Investigation Increases Concerns About Ticagrelor Trials
An investigation by The BMJ is raising fresh concerns about the clinical studies that supported the approval of the antiplatelet drug ticagrelor (Brilinta, AstraZeneca), almost 15 years after the medication was first approved and as generic versions are set to hit the market. Peter Doshi, PhD, a senior editor at The BMJ , previously reported inconsistencies and omissions in data reporting from the 2009 PLATO study, published in The New England Journal of Medicine , which showed ticagrelor was superior to clopidogrel in treating acute coronary syndrome. Now a follow-up investigation of two supporting studies published in Circulation , ONSET/OFFSET and RESPOND, has revealed primary endpoints were reported inaccurately, data were missing from the submission to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and study centers may not have received adequate training. Doshi said the results of his investigations call into question the drug's approval and suggested that it should be revisited. 'The FDA's approval in 2011 went against the evidence according to its reviewers, and now, my investigations into PLATO, ONSET/OFFSET, and RESPOND, suggest that even the data presented to the FDA and reported in The New England Journal of Medicine and Circulation , is not trustworthy,' he told Medscape Medical News. The investigation identified several problems with data integrity in the two trials. The original primary endpoint results for RESPOND, which aimed to test whether ticagrelor could convert nonresponders to clopidogrel into responders, were statistically nonsignificant ( P = .157) but were subsequently reported in Circulation as significant ( P = .005) because of an undeclared change in its primary endpoint definition. For ONSET/OFFSET, which reported ticagrelor provided faster and greater inhibition of platelets than clopidogrel, the investigators now claim several patients were excluded from the analysis. However, those who remained were identified as the 'intention-to-treat' population, implying all patients were included. Implausible data points were also included in the analysis of the primary endpoint but were first transformed through an unpublished data analysis, Doshi claimed. Doshi also gained access to readouts from some of the platelet function test machines used in the trial. He found more than 60 of 282 readings were not present in the datasets submitted to the FDA, and the levels of platelet activity in those readings were significantly higher than those reported in Circulation . Victor Serebruany, MD, from Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, and one of the more high-profile critics of ticagrelor, told The BMJ the missing readings show 'there are episodes of skyrocketing rebound and profound platelet inhibition after ticagrelor, making patients prone to thrombosis or bleeding. If doctors had known what happened in these trials, they would never have started using ticagrelor.' The investigation also revealed oddities around the authorship of the publications. One active trial investigator was never identified as a study author, while one author told The BMJ he was not involved in the trial. The BMJ states that AstraZeneca, the journal Circulation , and many of the original investigators either declined to comment on the new claims or were unreachable. Ticagrelor has been under fire since the beginning. The drug failed in its first bid for FDA approval and was the subject of an investigation by the US Department of Justice in 2013 at the urging of Serebruany. That investigation was closed in 2014 with no further action. A review of several major trials of ticagrelor by Eric Bates, MD, professor of internal medicine at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and a co-author of the US guidelines that recommend ticagrelor, concluded 'the clinical conventional wisdom and clinical trial guideline support for…ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel may be overemphasized.' Bates is now calling for a review of ticagrelor's recommendation in guidelines, according to the earlier The BMJ report.
Medscape
an hour ago
- Medscape
Muscle Gains vs Heart Strain: A Deadly Trade-off?
Sudden cardiac deaths (SCDs) appear to be more frequent among men who practice bodybuilding, particularly those competing at high levels. A global study of more than 20,000 athletes is the first to report the incidence of sudden death in this population. As the author noted in the European Heart Journal , the aim was not to demonize bodybuilding but to promote safer practices. Bodybuilding focuses on increasing muscle mass and definition through physical exercise and a targeted diet. Unlike traditional sports, bodybuilding competitions evaluate the aesthetics of the body rather than athletic performance. Researchers identified 20,286 men who had competed in the International Fitness and Bodybuilding Federation (IFBB) events between 2005 and 2020. Using web-based searches, they determined which athletes died. Over a mean follow-up period of 8.1 ± 3.8 years, there were 121 deaths. Among the 99 cases with documented causes, 73 were sudden. The mean age at the time of death was 45 years. Of the 55 nontraumatic sudden deaths — excluding those from car accidents, suicide, or homicide — 46 were classified as SCDs. The overall incidence of deaths (sudden and nonsudden) was 63.61 per 100,000 person-years. Among active competitors, those who died within 1 year of their last IFBB event, the rate rose to 80.58. The incidence of SCDs was 24.18 in the entire cohort and 32.83 among competing athletes, who had a mean age of just 35 years at death. Professional bodybuilders had a fivefold higher risk for SCD than recreational bodybuilders (hazard ratio, 5.23 [3.58-7.64]). Available autopsies showed the presence of cardiomegaly and severe ventricular hypertrophy in 4 out of 5 cases. Risk Factors The study pointed to a broader issue in addition to bodybuilders, which could also affect nonprofessional athletes who practice strength training. What are the possible causes? Univadis Italy , a Medscape Network platform, asked Marco Vecchiato, MD, a specialist and researcher in the Sports and Exercise Medicine Division at the University of Padua, Padua, Italy, and the coordinator of the study. 'Our study had epidemiological purposes and was not designed to identify, in a cause-effect manner, the mechanisms underlying these premature deaths. However, the literature in the field has advanced some plausible hypotheses, suggesting that a combination of factors could contribute significantly to the increased risk,' said Vecchiato. These include: Intense training regimens, such as high-intensity workouts, place major strain on the cardiovascular (CV) and muscular systems. Extreme dietary practices, such as high protein intake and repeated weight cycling between off-season and on-season periods, can place significant stress on metabolic and CV systems. Dehydration techniques, such as rapid fluid loss before events using hydro-saline protocols or diuretics, can be dangerous. The use of doping substances, especially anabolic steroids and similar agents, can severely harm the CV, kidneys, liver, and nervous system. Doping Impact 'It is important to underline that, to date, there are no studies that have exclusively investigated the risk for death and SCD in a population of bodybuilders with the guarantee of not taking doping substances. However, recent evidence published in first-time journals and with long-term monitoring suggested a clear difference in terms of cumulative mortality between athletes with and without a history of anabolic steroid abuse,' said Vecchiato. He noted that performance-enhancing drug use is likely to be widespread at the highest competitive levels. In the US, where bodybuilding is more structured and athletes face intense competitive and aesthetic pressure with serious psychophysical consequences, many athletes speak openly about the use of performance-enhancing drugs. However, in Italy, 'The issue remains mostly hidden and is often not perceived as a medical risk but as 'a necessary means' to obtain a certain physique,' he said. Uncertain Rules Athletes are generally required to undergo regular medical checkups, but does the same apply to bodybuilders? 'In Italy, there are numerous bodybuilding federations, each with its own rules and requirements for membership. Some of these clearly state the obligation to present a competitive sports medical certificate, while others do not mention any specific medical requirements, thus allowing membership even in the absence of a health assessment. In these cases, the activity is not formally classified as a sport but rather as an activity for aesthetic purposes, which allows you to bypass some obligations required for competitive sports, including medical certification,' Vecchiato explained. Although not formally required by regulations, a sports center or gym may still ask a bodybuilder to provide a noncompetitive medical certificate, often for insurance purposes. Under Italian law, such certification is not mandatory for individuals engaging in noncompetitive physical activity unless they are affiliated with a national sports federation or a sports promotion body recognized by the Italian National Olympic Committee, which oversees organized sports and fitness initiatives in the country. 'This heterogeneous regulatory situation means that some athletes are subjected to in-depth sports medical check-ups annually, including a baseline electrocardiogram, stress test, spirometry, urine test, and any further investigations of a higher order, while others receive an evaluation with only an electrocardiogram in resting conditions. Finally, a nonnegligible portion of subjects may never be subjected to any structured medical evaluation, not even when starting or continuing the activity practiced,' he said. 'The first contact with a doctor can therefore only occur after the onset of advanced signs or symptoms, sometimes linked to already structured CV or metabolic damage, making any form of secondary prevention potentially late,' he said. These signs warrant cardiologic or psychological evaluation. 'The general practitioner can play a key role in recognizing warning signs (excessive muscle hypertrophy, extreme weight fluctuations, suspected use of illicit substances, marked and sudden mood changes in the absence of diagnosed mental illnesses, gynecomastia, extensive acne in adults not present during puberty, etc.) and directing them towards cardiological or psychological investigations,' warned Vecchiato. He also noted that 15% of SCDs in this population were traumatic. Obsessive body transformation goals, extreme practices, and substance misuse increase the risk for impulsive or self-harming behavior. This reinforces the need to prioritize the mental health of athletes. Vecchiato concluded that 'in addition to an intensified antidoping practice, the introduction of targeted CV screening and educational campaigns could significantly reduce the associated risks.' Raising awareness can encourage athletes to adopt safer training and nutrition programs and diets, to be supervised by a physician, and to refuse doping.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
UnitedHealth's Rebound: Hidden Strength or Hiding Weakness?
Recently, UnitedHealth Group (UNH, Financial) has been the subject of many headlines because of DOJ probes, kickback accusations in nursing homes, and a shocking departure of its CEO. In addition, the value of its shares has dropped by almost 50%. Yet, underneath the news, the business is still strong. Health insurance remains important and strong throughout economic downturns and doesn't react to changes in global trade. In the aftermath, a clear development can be noticed as Stephen Hemsley was appointed CEO again and bought a large amount of stock which fueled a quick increase in share prices. Warning! GuruFocus has detected 4 Warning Sign with UNH. This is real conviction. UnitedHealth is focusing more on Medicaid-managed care, widening value-based care with Optum, and looking into growing its business in dual-eligible and long-term care. The company's financials confirm the trend since earnings have quadrupled in ten years, cash flow is strong, and insiders are buying in. In short, UnitedHealth is using the uncertainty to its advantage. Long-term investors may find the current price as an attractive chance to enter a company that has shown lasting and solid growth. UnitedHealth Group is the biggest health insurer in the United States and ranks highly internationally in healthcare. Its two key segments, UnitedHealthcare and Optum, give people health benefits, pharmacy services, data analysis, and healthcare. More than 150 million people are helped by this company, which is continuing to expand by combining operations and offering value-based care. The company provides insurance through commercial, Medicare, and Medicaid markets, and Optum sparks new ideas in care coordination and pharmaceutical services. UnitedHealth is smartly diversified. The company is doing well due to managed care growth, making money from healthcare improvements, and strategically serving top segments thanks to Optum doing the main work. Medicaid managed care expansion capturing state-level shifts: The move of Medicaid recipients from fee-for-service to managed care can bring huge benefits to UnitedHealth. According to industry statistics, UNH and four other large insurers cover over 50% of people in Medicaid-managed care across the nation. So, when several hundred thousand to millions switch plans, it has a huge effect on the company's finances. Since monthly premiums for complex patients in these states are $600$800, New York, Pennsylvania, and Michigan could add hundreds of millions of dollars to their annual premium earnings. Because of its connections with states, UNH is in a good position to win a major share of this revenue. Value-based care & optum scale turning outcomes into profit: Optum, which drives UNH's value-based approach, recorded $253 billion in revenue in 2024, which was 12% higher than the previous year, and $16.7 billion in operating income. Currently, Optum Health works with close to 4.7 million people in value-based contracts and plans to add another 650k in 2025. Focus on patient care and cost savings are the main aims of these models, and UNH supports this. When Optum grows its care coordination and home services, shared-savings revenue plays a bigger role, already bringing in hundreds of millions and capable of much more. High-Value segments target the dual-eligible and long-term care markets: Instead of raising its volume, UNH is focusing on high-paying customer groups, such as those with both Medicare and Medicaid and patients needing long-term care. Dual-eligibles may receive $2,500 monthly, which means each person will get $30,000 annually. Currently, UNH serves about 500k people, but if it could capture just 2 million of the national enrollments, it could earn $45 billion in annual premiums. Vertical integration with optum: Thanks to Optum, UNH has all its services combined, including pharmacy (over 1.62 billion scripts were handled by OptumRx in 2024), care delivery, data analysis, and provider management. Because of this integration, UNH is ahead in long-term care, managing care effectively, reducing expenses, and boosting results, which other organizations don't have. Overall, UnitedHealth is a leader that is making steady earnings now and is prepared to capture the future of healthcare and population wellness. Now, let's investigate the financial side of UnitedHealth Group. The company had good first-quarter earnings, but it sent a cautious message for the coming months. UnitedHealth Group's quarterly revenue of $109.6 billion was $10 billion higher than the same period last year, showing how much both UnitedHealthcare and Optum are growing. While adjusted EPS of $7.20 surpassed $6.91 from the earlier period, the company adjusted its full-year forecast down to expect adjusted EPS of $26.00 to $26.50. So, what leads to this change of tone? While UnitedHealthcare welcomed 780,000 new members, increased use of health services in Medicare Advantage by its customers caused the company's medical costs to increase above expectations. Because more people needed outpatient and physician care, the medical care ratio rose to 84.8%. For healthcare delivery, this is not necessarily an issue, yet it can still hurt business if prices fall short. Meanwhile, Optum Health experienced challenges with a more diverse member group and reduced payments due to less involvement among members in 2024. Even so, Optum achieved a $63.9 billion revenue thanks to its Rx division, which filled 408 million adjusted scripts. UNH is also operating efficiently, with its operating cost ratio now 12.4%, free cash flow at $5.5 billion, and a high 26.8% return on equity. The company also gave $5 billion back to its shareholders. All in all, UNH's basics are solid, but it has to deal with some short-term problems first. UnitedHealth Group has consistently improved its earnings over the years. In the year 2015, diluted earnings per share was only $6.01. Looking at the trailing twelve months, the number has reached $23.88. Over the past decade, the amount has almost quadrupled. It is even more impressive that the growth has been steady over the years. For many years, UnitedHealth kept increasing its profits, demonstrating the power of its varied businesses and strict management. The only major drop in EPS happened in 2024, with the figure reaching $15.51. Although this was an unusual dip in the company's history, it is on track for a solid recovery in 2025, and first-quarter adjusted EPS was $7.20. Looking into the future, analysts believe the trend will not stop. Even though 2025 is, in some ways, a year of recovery with a projected EPS of $22.59, the company's growth kicks in afterward. By 2026, analysts predict EPS will increase to $26.40, and then keep growing at double-digit rates, aiming for $45.83 by 2030. Source: Author generated based on historical data All in all, despite some occasional setbacks, UnitedHealth's future growth is steady, so patient investors are still in a position to be rewarded. The increase in EPS matches the upward trend in revenue per share. It highlights the company's steady growth and increased success. In the year 2015, the company's revenue per share was $162.47. Now, that figure is $443.16 TTM. That's a 170% jump in ten years, which clearly shows the company is making better use of its growth to help shareholders. What's most promising is that this growth keeps happening consistently. Revenue per share has increased year after year and stayed strong through different economic conditions and impacts on the industry. It is a result of the company attracting more members and expanding its main businesses, UnitedHealthcare and Optum. Once more, this trend keeps happening in the future. Revenue forecasts keep going up from $449.81 billion in 2025 to more than $591 billion by 2030. Minor changes in growth do not stop the company from expanding and creating more value for its shareholders. Source: Author generated based on historical data UnitedHealth Group's free cash flow per share is a reliable sign of how well the company is financially and operationally. The amount of free cash flow per share in 2015 was $8.46. Afterward, the company increased this number, reaching $26.82 for the TTM, which is more than three times higher than its value a decade back. What stands out about this growth is that it follows closely in line with the company's earnings trajectory. Therefore, we see that UnitedHealth's profits are being turned into cash that can be used to strengthen the business, cut debt, or be given back to its shareholders. Being that efficient is not common in an industry that relies heavily on capital like healthcare. UnitedHealth Group gives investors a good dividend since the dividend yield is 2.92% and the payout ratio is only 30%, which suggests that dividends could increase in the future. It's worth noting that over the past 5 years, the company has seen a 14.6% growth in its dividend, which tops inflation and profits long-term investors. Through ten years of constant raises, the yield on cost increases to 15.38%. Although UNH is offering a high yield now, low buybacks mean most capital is shared through dividends. UnitedHealth Group looks deeply undervalued right now. According to GuruFocus, the stock is trading about half its worth, as the fair value is $633.16 but it is currently trading at $303.22. There is a massive disconnect here, and it's very unusual for a company as stable as UNH to deviate so much from its fair value estimate. Valuation multiples are also telling the same story. The forward P/E of this stock is 13.42, which is much lower than the average of 17.66, giving a discount of 23.98%. The company's forward EV/EBITDA of 9.61 is better than the sector's ratio of 11.79. On a price-to-sales ratio, UNH is trading at 0.61 times its projected sales, while the healthcare industry is pricing in at 3.43xa discount of 82%. All in all, UNH gives you both quality and value. Almost all of the valuation measures suggest that the company is undervalued in terms of its earnings, sales, and cash flow. Even though the stock is built on solid foundations and pays out more in dividends each year, it still trades at a lower price than its competitors. As a result, long-term investors can take advantage of acquiring a leader in healthcare at a much lower price than its actual value. When measured against companies like Humana (HUM, Financial) and HealthEquity (HQY, Financial), UnitedHealth Group is still a good buy. Because its forward P/E is lower than HUM's 14.1 times and much lower than HQY's 30 times, it attracts those who want to invest for growth as well as value. Considering price-to-sales, UNH trades at 0.68 times, making it more valuable than HQY's 7.8 while being slightly higher than HUM's very low 0.23. On the EV/EBITDA ratio, UNH stands at 9.6x forward, quite similar to HUM's 9.2x and much less than HQY's 19.2x. All in all, UNH is well-balanced by giving investors scale, profits, dividend growth, and a reasonably attractive price. HUM also does well in various areas, especially when it comes to managing expenses and the way the company works. But in the long run, investors admire UNH for its consistent results and potential to increase. Source: Author generated based on data Going forward, I feel UnitedHealth Group (NYSE:UNH) is well-positioned to achieve a price target of $395$410 in the next year and possibly surpass $525$550 by 2027. Despite the stock's recent volatility, the numbers, the company's health, and the outlook seem to fit together nicely. Let's begin our discussion with the short term. Despite many years of increasing earnings and a high rate of cash conversion, UNH is only valued at 13.4 times its future earnings when the stock is trading at $303. Healthcare companies, on the other hand, have a forward P/E of about 17.6, and UNH has generally had a forward P/E between 18x and 20x during calm times. If UNH is valued at just 17 times the expected FY2025 EPS of $22.59, the price would come to $384. At 18x, If stability comes back and the new leaders reassure everyone, the stock could increase to $406. The story gets even better as you look further into the future. Analysts are predicting that EPS will rise to $45.83 by 2030, meaning it will be about double the current earnings in just five years. Multiply the earnings by 15, and the share price comes out to $687. But, let's narrow our focus to conservatism, and for 2027, the predicted EPS is about $34.50. At this multiple of 15x, the price comes out to $517if the market recovers, shares could climb to $550 or more due to the 16x or 17x rating. If the DOJ investigation ends well and Hemsley's efforts to cut costs are successful, the company should do well over the next few quarters. We are not just discussing theory here. Since 2015, UNH's free cash flow per share has more than tripled, its revenue per share has nearly tripled too, and it still has some of the top dividend growth rates in healthcare. Such consistency, size, and under-valuation are hard to find in one company. Let's look at how Wall Street views this area. Looking at the chart, analysts foresee that the price of Apple shares might rise by 26.2% to $382.80 in the next 12 months. It is estimated that the cost can fall anywhere from $270 to $677. To conclude, although there may be short-term ups and downs, it looks like disciplined, patient investors will find more favorable long-term conditions. When Andrew Witty suddenly left his CEO post in May because of profit problems and dropped 2025 guidance, UNH shares fell over 12% to their lowest point in five years and wiped out more than $250 billion in market value. As a consequence, the board brought back former CEO Stephen Hemsley (who headed the company from 2006 to 2017). Within only a few days, Hemsley made a big step by buying nearly 86,700 shares worth about $25 million for $288.60 per share. Hemsley, together with the CFO and several directors, voted to keep the company's value high, and shares rose by about 8% the following trading day. What does it imply? It is clear that the management views the falling share price of UNH as a good time to purchase. The fact that Hemsley has invested his money shows how much he believes in the company after all it has achieved. Yet, this is not a case of blind faith: the company is dealing with an ongoing investigation, higher medical costs in Medicare Advantage, and a cyberattack it suffered recently. From a strategic point of view, all this buying in UNH suggests that the company's leaders believe the worst has passed and risks for the stock are low. The guru trading chart has an interesting narrative. Although UnitedHealth's stock has gone down recently, gurus have been buying it more frequently. Many green bars are appearing, both early in 2024 and again later in 2025, showing that some informed investors are looking at the dip as an opportunity to buy instead of a warning sign. This trend can be seen in the investor's stock portfolio. Vanguard is still the biggest shareholder, but it slightly reduced its holdings. I'm also paying attention to Ken Fisher (Trades, Portfolio) , who bought much more, a solid 52%, and Jeremy Grantham (Trades, Portfolio) , who increased his holding by over 7%. Though there is selling and shares are reduced as well, institutions tend to be cautiously upbeat. Even though UnitedHealth's future looks bright, investors should still pay attention to the risks in the near term. The DOJ is currently investigating the business for possible Medicare Advantage fraud, such as upcoding and billing errors, which is a very serious matter that could result in being fined or charged in court. At the same moment, Washington is paying more attention to supervision. Should reforms reduce the inflation of risk scores or Medicare allowance for nurse practitioners, it could affect the profitability of Medicare Advantage. Q1 faced some issues because the higher use of medical services caused the medical loss ratio to increase to around 85%, and Optum is still learning to handle CMS's updated risk model. Because of these pressures, there could be more budget reductions for guidance. However, the bad news appears to be mostly factored into share prices. For careful investors who believe the company will survive, this could present an opportunity to buy long-term. The headlines can be very tempting, but stepping back, it appears that UnitedHealth is still a powerhouse lurking in plain sight. It is the same old stuff but with a different sentiment. The long-term story is still in place with the reinstatement of Stephen Hemsley, a recent insider purchase, and a long history of expertise in Medicaid-managed care and the Optum platform in value-based care. Most of that bad news, including the increases in care costs, and regulatory noise, appears to be reflected in price. Sentiment can change at any minute as long as we hear a resolution to the DOJ investigation, a slowdown in the trend of rising Medicare costs, or upbeat guidance in coming quarters. Any of those may be the spark. In the meantime, the stock is currently trading at one of the most attractive valuations it has seen in years, and the set-up is of the sort long-term investors tend to reflect back on with gratitude. If you are waiting to have a clear picture, you may miss the opportunity. However, to the patient and longer-term investors, this may be one of those times when interceding in soreness results in actual payoff. In other words, this just might be a smart time to lean in and buy the stock. This article first appeared on GuruFocus. Sign in to access your portfolio
