Insurers: Mass. health care reaching 'limits of affordability'
BOSTON (SHNS) – Confronting soaring health care costs compounded by widespread obstacles in accessing care, top insurance executives warned Thursday that the state's health care system is at a breaking point.
New payment models could help alleviate the industry's financial woes, particularly in the primary care landscape, they said.
The heads of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Fallon Health and WellSense Health Plan offered their sobering perspectives on cost and access challenges in front of hundreds of health care providers gathered at the Massachusetts Health and Hospital Association's annual meeting at the Westin Seaport.
'The challenges, no matter where you sit in the health care ecosystem right now, are profound,' Sarah Iselin, CEO of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, said during a panel discussion.
Iselin invoked nearly double-digit health care cost trends, which she attributed to steeper medications prices like GLP-1 weight-loss drugs and 'higher utilization increases across the board.' Iselin said those trends are driving losses among health insurers. Blue Cross had a 'pretty rough' last year, and that trend is expected through 2025, she said.
'It is going to have consequences that I think should concern all of the local payers because the faster health care costs grow, the more tempting it is for employers to go self-insured,' said Iselin, who warned that would 'invite more of the national payers into the market.'
Echoing Iselin's assessment, Fallon Health CEO Manny Lopes said both providers and payers are at a 'crisis point.' Meanwhile, WellSense Health Plan President Heather Thiltgen said Massachusetts is 'really starting to reach the limits of affordability, for our consumers, our employers and our taxpayers.'
Panelists also discussed initiatives their organizations are pursuing to manage health care costs and bolster access, with an eye toward pinpointing potential statewide strategies.
Assistant Secretary for MassHealth Mike Levine said state officials over the last two years 'significantly increased' investment in primary care by embracing a capitated payment model rather than a fee-for-service structure. That move creates a more predictable monthly revenue stream for primary care practices, Levine said.
'I don't think there are enough practices in Massachusetts with a high enough Medicaid payer mix for that to be the thing alone that will transform care and experience for providers and members,' Levine said. 'But we are eager to partner with providers and other payers to build a model of capitation in the primary care setting that will hopefully unlock some of the access that has been so hard to find.'
Gov. Maura Healey and Senate President Karen Spilka have pegged primary care as a priority for the new legislative session. A primary care task force, established through the new hospital oversight law, will produce recommendations to improve care access, delivery and financial sustainability.
Healey, during remarks earlier Thursday at the MHA meeting, said her fiscal 2026 budget proposal looks to boost MassHealth investment in primary care to '10% of its total spend moving forward.'
'We know that without that proper investment, we can't support our primary care workforce, we can't give patients better access to the care they deserve,' the governor said. 'And we think there's an opportunity for all of us together to look at how we can prioritize primary care.'
Lopes highlighted another capitated program at Fallon Health, which he said serves the frailest elderly members who are considered eligible for nursing homes but receive comprehensive at-home care.
'The goal is to try to keep those individuals out of institutions, living in the community and living healthy in the community, and bring all the support services for them and their families,' Lopes said. 'When I look at that model, it really is a model that we can apply to other frail populations or severely ill populations, where we really create an environment of capitated payment — create an environment where someone can come in and get the care that they need.'
Thiltgen said WellSense, which serves a large share of people with Medicaid and highly-subsidized ConnectorCare coverage, said members have 'considerable access problems' for behavioral and primary care. She said the health plan is exploring how to better integrate care, including for individuals with substance use disorder.
'We are experimenting with putting nurse practitioners in providers' offices so that we can help providers more efficiently understand who needs the care, and provide that bridge and help improve overall quality,' Thiltgen said.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
28 minutes ago
- CBS News
More than a dozen Massachusetts beaches are closed for swimming today. See the list.
Thursday is expected to be the hottest day of the year so far for many in Massachusetts, with temperatures soaring into the 90s around Boston. If you're planning to beat the heat by heading to the beach, you'll want to check first to make sure your favorite swimming spot is open. The Department of Public Health publishes a daily dashboard of beach closures in the state. On Thursday there were more than a dozen beaches closed for swimming due to bacteria levels or other reasons. One notable entry on the list is Walden Pond's main beach, which is closed all summer because of construction work on a new bathhouse. Take a look below at today's beach closures, which was last updated at 9 a.m. Thursday. List of beach closures in Massachusetts today Damon Pond Beach, Ashby (Bacterial Exceedance) Walden Pond - Main, Concord (Other) Richard P. Sharon Beach, Marlboro (Bacterial Exceedance) Miacomet Pond, Nantucket (Harmful Cyanobacteria Bloom) Short Beach, Revere (Bacterial Exceedance) Collins Cove, Salem (Bacterial Exceedance) Juniper Point, Salem (Bacterial Exceedance) Steps Beach, Salem (Other) Peckham Pond at Cape Nihan, Saugus (Bacterial Exceedance) Beamans Pond, Templeton (Bacterial Exceedance) Pearl Hill Pond Beach, Townsend (Bacterial Exceedance) Crow Hill Pond Beach, Westminster (Bacterial Exceedance) Donovans Beach, Winthrop (Bacterial Exceedance) Halford Beach, Winthrop (Bacterial Exceedance) Why are beaches closed in Massachusetts? How does bacteria get in the water? According to health experts, it can enter through stormwater run-off, malfunctioning septic systems and sewer overflows, wildlife and pet waste or agricultural runoff. Swimming in water with unsafe bacteria levels can result in gastrointestinal or respiratory illness, as well as skin rash and itching. Cleanest beaches around Boston A recent report from Save The Harbor/Save The Bay declared that South Boston has some of the cleanest urban beaches in the country. Pleasure Beach and City Point got the highest marks, and Nantasket, M Street and Carson beaches also scored well. The report also said Wollaston Beach in Quincy continues to improve after upgrading their stormwater and sewer systems in recent years.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Trump's deportation pause ignores vital immigrant health care workers
President Trump has signaled his intent to pause deportations on immigrant workers in the hotel, agriculture and restaurant sectors: an important step toward lowering the temperature that led to riots in the streets of Los Angeles last week. It's welcome news for millions of hardworking individuals. But it ignores another important industry demographic, one we can't exist without, where millions more will continue to live in perpetual fear: immigrant health care workers. Today, over 20 percent of doctors who practice in America were born outside the U.S., a number that has grown by 30 percent since 2004. Not surprisingly, a large number of physicians who trained overseas today serve rural and underserved U.S. populations — marginalized communities that already suffer from compromised access to quality medical care. While some are U.S. citizens who attended international medical schools, ' most ' are from other countries of origin. Specifically, a report by the American Immigration Council found that over a third of doctors in America who practice in areas where poverty is high were trained outside of the U.S. In places where the majority of the population is nonwhite, it's over 35 percent. In regions where annual per-capita income is lower than $15,000, it's over 40 percent. Proposed cuts to Medicaid will further decrease access to care and likely result in rural hospital closures. U.S. reliance on immigrant physicians to serve underprivileged communities is 'due, in part, to America's growing and aging population,' says Selma Hedlund, a Boston University postdoctoral associate. Hedlund argues many U.S.-born doctors have an 'unwillingness to move to poorer and more rural areas' due to a 'lack of interest in going into primary care, which can be less lucrative and prestigious than other areas of medicine.' It's why immigrants are 'indispensable in hospitals and clinics across the nation,' she says. Sadly, we're giving these medical professionals reason to wonder if they made the right decision. Foreign-born physicians require federal visas to live and practice in America, a ' privilege ' the U.S. State Department has made clear it will use as a weapon, decreasing the nation's ability to provide basic care across the country. The ongoing immigration debate will likely raise even more questions in the minds of both foreign-born doctors who are here and those considering emigrating to America. Such as: Will they feel safe to practice in America when immigration status is a flash point in urban and rural communities? When U.S. officials signal to the world that immigrant visas can be revoked at any moment, will foreign-born doctors want to bring their skills, and their families, to a place that says to the world: 'We don't want you here'? The impact on the health care system goes beyond doctors. Immigrants make up a sizable portion of the healthcare support workforce, too. Legal and undocumented individuals comprise nearly 30 percent of direct-care workers in America. Over 16 percent of nurses on staff are immigrants. Over 800,000 people served in this capacity in the U.S. as of 2023: 500,000 of them were naturalized citizens, and over 300,000 were noncitizen immigrants. Immigrants also represent a significant percentage of the home-care workforce. One out of every three, to be exact. Over 20 percent of staff in nursing facilities and nearly a quarter of those who work in residential care environments came from other countries. These individuals play a vital role in caring for the elderly, the disabled and supporting the needs of overcrowded hospitals and emergency rooms. And as our population increases, we will need more of them, not less. Today, 75 million baby boomers in America will soon need long-term care services. Without immigrants, America will not be able to address the needs of this fast-growing community. Our immigration system is broken. We must find sustainable and dignified paths for those who currently live here illegally, and those who wish to enter. Immigrants who provide critical health care services for a large segment of the U.S. population need to know they are welcome and appreciated. Implementing responsible immigration reforms while ensuring the stability of the U.S. health system that relies on a strong immigrant workforce isn't mutually exclusive. We can achieve both if the political will is there. But it doesn't stand a chance if our immigration crackdown is interpreted as a warning shot to skilled doctors and caregivers around the world that America is no longer a viable place to build a career. We must value, not vilify, the role immigrants play in supporting our nation's public health. And we must encourage more to come, not give them reasons to question what will happen to them if they do.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Clarence Thomas urges courts to end deferring to ‘experts' on gender-affirming care
Justice Clarence Thomas said Wednesday that courts should not defer to 'self-described experts' on gender-affirming care, suggesting it is a matter of medical uncertainty. Thomas's concurring opinion came as the Supreme Court upheld in a 6-3 decision Tennessee's ban on puberty blockers and hormone treatments for transgender minors, a ruling that could reverberate through several states that have similar laws. 'This case carries a simple lesson: In politically contentious debates over matters shrouded in scientific uncertainty, courts should not assume that self-described experts are correct,' the justice wrote in a solo concurring opinion. Tennessee's law, S.B. 1, bars health care providers from prescribing puberty blocking and hormone therapy medications to minors when the intent is to help them transition. Signed in 2023, it also bans gender-transition surgeries for minors, though the justices did not consider that provision. Medical providers could face $25,000 civil fines for violating the law. Thomas claimed that 'many prominent medical professionals' have said there is a consensus around how to treat child gender dysphoria, but there is 'mounting evidence to the contrary.' Those experts have dismissed 'grave problems' that undercut the assumption that young children can consent to 'irreversible treatments,' he said. 'They have built their medical recommendations to achieve political ends,' the justice wrote, joining the majority in saying that the court's decision hands power back to Americans and their elected representatives. The court's decision rejects a challenge brought by former President Biden's administration. It found that Tennessee's law does not amount to sex discrimination requiring a higher level of constitutional scrutiny, dealing a blow to LGBTQ-rights advocates who have claimed as much to try and take down similar laws. Justice Sonia Sotomayor pushed back against Thomas's perspective in a footnote of her dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson in full and Elena Kagan in part. 'Far from signaling that 'self-proclaimed experts' can determine 'the meaning of the Constitution' ante, this reference to the positions of major medical organizations is simply one piece of factual context relevant to the Court's assessment of whether SB1 is substantially related to the achievement of an important government interest,' Sotomayor wrote. 'Indeed, even Justice Thomas seems to recognize that some scientific and medical evidence (at least that which is consistent with his view of the merits) is relevant to the questions this case presents,' she added, citing points where Thomas referenced various peer-reviewed medical journals throughout his opinion. President Trump's Justice Department walked away from the Biden administration's challenge when he returned to the White House. The new administration urged the Supreme Court to decide the case, nonetheless, given its importance. Major medical organizations, including the American Medical Association, have said gender-affirming care for transgender adults and minors is medically necessary and often lifesaving, though not every trans person will choose to transition medically or have access to care. In May, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) broke with major professional medical groups in an unsigned report that declared gender-affirming treatments lack scientific evidence. Susan J. Kressly, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, said her organization was 'deeply alarmed' by the report, which she said 'misrepresents the current medical consensus and fails to reflect the realities of pediatric care.' During oral arguments in December, Justices Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh repeatedly referenced European countries that have recently moved to restrict some gender-affirming care for youth. 'If it's evolving like that and changing, and England is pulling back and Sweden is pulling back, it strikes me as a pretty heavy yellow light, if not red light, for this court to come in, the nine of us, and constitutionalize the whole area,' Kavanaugh said at the time. But opponents of U.S. laws banning transition-related care for trans minors have said prohibitions imposed by Republican-led states go much further than European policies, which limit but do not categorically ban care. 'This is no ordinary medical regulation,' Pratik Shah, head of Supreme Court and appellate practice at Akin Gump, said of Tennessee's law on a call with reporters in December. Brooke Migdon contributed to this report. Updated at 11:46 a.m. EDT Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
