Health companies return $2.6 trillion to shareholders over time amid rising medical costs
Consumers have grown accustomed to rising prices and red tape when filing a health insurance claim or filling a prescription. But for investors, health care has proven to be a lucrative industry to grow their returns.
Payouts to shareholders of large publicly traded health companies more than tripled over the past two decades, new research shows. In 2022, these companies paid $170 billion to shareholders in dividends and stock buybacks, a 315% increase over the $54 billion paid out in 2001, according to a study published Monday in peer-reviewed JAMA Internal Medicine.
A total of 92 companies that appeared in the broad S&P 500 index returned $2.6 trillion to shareholders from 2001 through 2022, according to the study.
The study highlights the flow of money in health care at a time when many patients struggle with rising bills and medical debt.
Consumers and employers ultimately contributed to corporate health profits by paying for insurance premiums, out-of-pocket medical bills and taxes, according to Victor Roy, a physician and researcher at the University of Pennsylvania, Penn Presbyterian Medical Center, who led the study.
Need a break? Play the USA TODAY Daily Crossword Puzzle.
"The fact that that money goes to shareholders, at this scale, is something that we should have as part of our public debate," Roy said. "We should care about whether this is the most effective way for allocating the dollars that come from all of us."
These health companies made 80% of profits
Taxpayers underwrite most of the nation's health care spending through tax breaks and direct spending on programs such as Medicare, which covers adults 65 and older, and Medicaid, which covers low-income families. Employers who provide health insurance to workers and their families also get tax benefits, and nonprofit hospitals get billions in federal, state and local tax breaks.
Roy teamed with Yale University researchers to calculate how much money large health care corporations returned to shareholders.
The researchers collected data on 92 health-related companies that appeared in the S&P 500 index for at least three months between 2001 and 2022. They calculated corporate profits returned as dividends or share buybacks, which describes companies that repurchase shares to shore up a firm's share value.
The study said 19 companies made about 80% of the total payouts over this period. Drug companies dominated list with Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, and Amgen paying out the most lucrative returns, the study said. UnitedHealth Group, the health insurance giant that also owns the pharmacy benefit manager Optum Rx, ranked 5th.
Pharmaceutical companies collectively returned $1.2 trillion over the two-plus decades. Biotechnology and managed care companies ranked 2nd and 3rd on shareholder payouts, the study said.
Health care profit: A value question for society?
Roy said large health companies that choose to reward investors instead of returning money to health system often seek to grow profit by raising prices. He cited examples of pharmaceutical companies raising drug prices or health insurers hiking monthly premiums.
But he cautioned the study isn't meant to be a comprehensive look at all money that flows through health care.
The study didn't address private equity investors that have targeted specialty practices in certain states and metro regions. A National Bureau of Economic Research paper by researchers from Yale, Northwestern and the University of Chicago revealed 18 metro regions found serial anesthesiology acquisitions, known as "rollups," resulted in fewer provider choices and higher bills for consumers.
Nonprofit hospitals collect billions in federal, state and local tax breaks. One study by Johns Hopkins University and Texas Christian University researchers estimated the nation's nearly 3,000 nonprofit hospitals were spared $37.4 billion in federal, state and local taxes in 2021.
Dr. Vikas Saini, president of the Lown Institute, a Massachusetts-based health think tank, said the Roy's study raises an important question. How much profit is reasonable given U.S. taxpayers pay for a significant amount of health spending?
"It's a value question for the society," Saini said. "Is there a point where it's perfectly reasonable or is there a point where it's totally obscene? Clearly, for shareholders, it's not obscene. They love it."
Health care regulation, lack of competition to blame
Other academics who study who study health care pricing say they don't see a problem with publicly-traded companies profiting from health care.
Ge Bai, Johns Hopkins University professor of accounting and health policy and management, said most successful industries reward shareholders only when they are able to deliver better, cheaper products for consumers.
Bai said the real culprit in health care's wasteful spending is a market that is heavily regulated and anticompetitive.
"When companies' revenue depends on government programs and regulations, they can drive up healthcare prices and lower quality while still making a lot of money," Bai said.
Saini said comparing health care to other sectors is impossible due the unique nature of the U.S. health care system.
Pharmaceutical companies often employ strategies to extend patents for brand name drugs and delay competition from generics. Hospitals have been slow to comply with price transparency rules that would give consumers the option to shop and compare prices for non-emergency care. And even though more data on health quality has trickled out, relatively few consumers search for this information when selecting a surgeon, Saini said.
"The whole idea that that there's a functioning market is a fantasy," Saini said "Given that fact, the way money flows is not at all rational, and that's why we get what we get in terms of the prices of everything."
Ken Alltucker is on X at @kalltucker, contact him by email at alltuck@usatoday.com.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Why Novo Nordisk Stock Pumped Higher on Thursday
The company delivered some good news from the lab. It is advancing a promising drug candidate. 10 stocks we like better than Novo Nordisk › Positive news from the laboratory was the wind beneath the wings of Novo Nordisk (NYSE: NVO) stock on Thursday. The Denmark-based pharmaceutical company, famed for its Ozempic and Wegovy drugs, saw its share price improve by nearly 3% on the day after it reported the results of a late-stage clinical trial. That rise easily bettered the 0.4% gain of the S&P 500 index. That news concerned amycretin, an investigational weight-loss drug that would represent a step up from the highly popular Wegovy. Novo Nordisk reported that it is advancing amycretin to a phase 3 study. The company is making the move after receiving feedback on earlier-stage testing. In the final phase, both subcutaneous and oral forms of the drug will be put through their paces. Novo Nordisk hopes to launch the trials in the first quarter of 2026. Like Wegovy and Ozempic, amycretin is a GLP-1 agonist, however it also imitates another hormone known as amylin (hence its name). Dual agonists such as this are currently being trialed by several Novo Nordisk peers, and are seen by some as the potential future of weight loss drugs (Wegovy and the closely related Ozempic are single-agonist treatments). These days it's hard to be disappointed in any company advancing a promising weight loss drug; hence the small pop that followed Novo Nordisk's announcement. Amycretin has tested well thus far, so this is a sensible (if not unexpected) next step. Phase 3 is the most crucial period of drug testing in many ways, so more than a few eyes will be on the company as amycretin makes its way through the trial. Before you buy stock in Novo Nordisk, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Novo Nordisk wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $657,871!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $875,479!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 998% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 174% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join . See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of June 9, 2025 Eric Volkman has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool recommends Novo Nordisk. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Why Novo Nordisk Stock Pumped Higher on Thursday was originally published by The Motley Fool Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
House tax-and-spending bill and other Trump administration changes could make millions of people lose their health insurance coverage
President Donald Trump has promised not to cut Medicaid many times over the past decade, including in the tax-and-spending legislative package he has made a top priority in his second administration. But several provisions in the bill, which the House of Representatives passed in a largely party-line 215-214 vote in May 2025, could cause millions of Americans enrolled in Medicaid to lose their health insurance coverage, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Medicaid is funded jointly by the federal government and the states. The program provides nearly 80 million Americans, most of whom are low-income or have disabilities, with health insurance. The legislation, which advances Trump's agenda, faces a tough battle in the Senate despite the Republican Party majority in that chamber. Several GOP senators have either said they oppose it or have expressed strong reservations for a variety of reasons, including the trillions of dollars the package would add to the U.S. government's debt. As a scholar who researches access to health care, I am concerned about the possibility that millions of people will lose their health insurance coverage should this bill become law. In many cases, that could occur due to new bureaucratic obstacles the bill would introduce. About 25.3 million Americans lacked insurance in 2023, down sharply from 46.5 million in 2010. Most of this 46% decline occurred because of the Affordable Care Act of 2010. The Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan agency that provides evidence-supported information to Congress, estimates that 10.9 million Americans would lose their health insurance by 2034 if the House of Representatives' version of that package were to become law. Of these, as many as 7.8 million would lose access to Medicaid. Another 2.1 million people who the CBO estimates would end up uninsured are Americans who today have coverage they bought in the marketplaces that the Affordable Care Act created. In addition to the measures in the tax-and-spending bill, other changes are looming. These include the expiration of some ACA-related measures adopted in 2021 that Trump does not intend to renew, and new regulations. All told, the number of Americans losing their health insurance by 2034 could total 16 million, according to the CBO. Other estimates suggest that the number of Americans losing their coverage could run even higher. The House bill would reduce incentives the federal government provides states to expand their Medicaid programs as part of the ACA. Eliminating these incentives would make it even less likely that Texas and the other nine states that still have not expanded Medicaid eligibility would do so in the future. The bill would also make it harder for states to come up with their share of Medicaid funding by limiting 'provider taxes.' These taxes are charged to hospitals, doctors and other medical providers. The revenue they raise help pay for the state's share of Medicaid costs. And the legislative package would also reduce federal funding to cover Medicaid costs in states that provide coverage to unauthorized immigrants using only their own funds. Threatened with billions in losses, the states that do this are unlikely to maintain these programs. In California alone, this would jeopardize the coverage of 1.6 million of its residents. Losing Medicaid coverage may leave millions of low-income Americans without insurance coverage, with no affordable alternatives for health care. Other proposed changes in the House bill would indirectly cut Medicaid coverage by forcing people to deal with more red tape to get or keep it. This would happen primarily through the introduction of 'work requirements' for Medicaid coverage. When enrolled in the program, applicants who are between 19 and 64 years old would need to certify they are working at least 80 hours a month or spending that much time engaged in comparable activities, such as community service. Work requirements specifically target people eligible for Medicaid through the Affordable Care Act's expansion of the program. They tend to have slightly higher incomes than the other people eligible for this benefit. Arkansas gave Medicaid work requirements a try during the first Trump administration. Researchers who studied what happened found that 1 in 4 of the Arkansans enrolled in Medicaid affected by the policy lost their health insurance coverage. They also found that in most cases, this occurred because of bureaucratic obstacles, and that the policy didn't lead to more people getting jobs. By some estimates, the work requirements provision alone would lead to close to 5 million people of the 7.8 million being denied Medicaid coverage. At the same time, the bill would increase how often Medicaid beneficiaries have to reapply to the program to keep their coverage from once every 12 months to twice a year. It also would delay or reverse several policies that made it easier for Americans to enroll in Medicaid and maintain their coverage. Many of those who aren't kicked out would also face either new or higher co-payments for appointments and procedures – restricting their access to health care, even if they don't wind up without insurance. There is ample evidence that obstacles like these make it hard to remain enrolled in safety net programs. Historically, the people who are most likely to lose their benefits are low-income, people of color or immigrants who do not speak English well. The bill would also affect the more than 24 million Americans who get health insurance through Affordable Care Act Marketplace plans. Changes in the House version of the bill would make it harder to get this coverage. This includes reducing the time Americans have to enroll in plans and eliminating certain subsidies. It also makes the enrollment process more complicated. Combined with other changes the Trump administration has made, experts expect Marketplace premiums to skyrocket. The Congressional Budget Office expects more than 2 million beneficiaries to lose coverage due to these new policies. Americans buying their own insurance on the ACA marketplaces may also face higher premiums. Increased subsidies in place since 2021 are set to expire at the end of the year. Combined with Trump regulatory decisions, this may lead to more than 5 million Americans losing coverage – whether or not the GOP's tax-and-spending package is enacted. The effects of the bill would also be compounded by further changes by individual states. This could include the introduction of monthly premiums that people with Medicaid coverage would have to pay, in Indiana and other states. Some states may also reduce eligibility for certain groups or cover fewer services, as states seek to reduce their Medicaid costs. And some states, including Iowa and Utah, are already pursuing work requirements on their own whether or not they become mandatory across the nation. If fewer Americans have health insurance due to changes the Trump administration is making and the policies embedded in the pending tax-and-spending legislative package, the health of millions of people could get worse due to forgone care. And at the same time, their medical debts could grow larger. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Simon F. Haeder, Texas A&M University Read more: US health care is rife with high costs and deep inequities, and that's no accident – a public health historian explains how the system was shaped to serve profit and politicians There's no evidence work requirements for Medicaid recipients will boost employment, but they are a key piece of Republican spending bill Work requirements are better at blocking benefits for low-income people than they are at helping those folks find jobs Dr. Simon F. Haeder has previously received funding from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Pennsylvania Insurance Department, and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation for unrelated projects.
Medscape
an hour ago
- Medscape
Cardiac Risk Warning for Lamotrigine Challenged
Real-world data from two new studies showed no increased risk for cardiac issues in older adults with epilepsy taking the antiseizure medication (ASM) lamotrigine (Lamictal) vs levetiracetam. The findings add to growing evidence that may eventually lead the FDA to reconsider its current cardiac safety warning, researchers said. The FDA added the cardiac warning label in 2020 based on in vitro studies and case reports of arrhythmias in some patients with underlying heart disease who were taking the drug. However, as reported by Medscape Medical News at that time, several groups challenged the severity of the warning — particularly given that clinicians had been prescribing lamotrigine for three decades without the widespread evidence of such risks. The first new cohort study used data from US Medicare claims and UK claims for more than 53,00 total patients. Its findings showed no difference in new diagnoses of ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation (VT/VF) between patients initiating the use of lamotrigine and those initiating the use of levetiracetam. Results from the second cohort study, which used Medicare data of nearly 12,000 new lamotrigine users and nearly 150,000 new levetiracetam users, showed no significant between-group differences in incidence of ventricular arrhythmia and sudden cardiac arrest (VA/SCA). The study was prompted by the FDA's safety warning, which was based on limited evidence, lead author Gloria Y.F. Ho, PhD, told Medscape Medical News . 'Our study was done in people, had a comparator, and also looked at several subgroups. And we did not find an increased risk' for cardiac outcomes, said Ho, visiting scholar at the Center for Pharmacoepidemiology and Treatment Science at Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey. The findings for both studies were published online on June 11 in Neurology . Closing the Evidence Gap Lamictal accounts for 'about 10% of all antiseizure medication use,' the investigators noted in a press release. It remains first-line therapy for certain forms of epilepsy, according to the American Epilepsy Society (AES) and the American Academy of Neurology. The drug inhibits voltage-gated sodium channels, which is a mechanism also implicated in regulating cardiomyocyte excitability. In October 2020, the FDA updated the lamotrigine label to warn about its potential to prolong QT interval, induce new arrhythmias, and slow ventricular conduction in patients with structural or functional heart disease on the basis of an in vitro electrophysiologic study and some case reports. In addition, rodent studies have shown prolonged QT interval time with high-dose lamotrigine vs placebo or a low dose of the drug. 'However, it is uncertain whether these findings are applicable to human physiology,' Ho and colleagues wrote. They added that other studies have often been underpowered to detect rare outcome risks. 'In such instances, real-world data sources can help provide valuable insights to fill this gap,' they noted. Class III Evidence In the first study, led by Samuel W. Terman, MD, from the Department of Clinical Neurosciences at the University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, participants were included if they had filled their first ASM prescription following a first seizure or epilepsy diagnosis, with no prescriptions for this drug class in the previous year. The full patient population included 40,554 patients from Medicare (3038 lamotrigine users and 37,516 levetiracetam users) and 13,098 patients from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD; 8694 lamotrigine users and 4404 levetiracetam users). In the Medicare group, the median age of those receiving lamotrigine vs levetiracetam was 61 vs 74 years. In the CPRD group, the median age was 34 vs 48 years. The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for VT/VF was 0.73 for lamotrigine vs levetiracetam in the Medicare dataset and 0.75 for lamotrigine vs levetiracetam in the CPRD dataset. The cumulative incidences were 1.7% vs 2.3% and 0.2% vs 0.3%, respectively. In addition, lamotrigine showed a 'slightly, but nonsignificantly, lower 2-year absolute difference' in cumulative VT/VF incidence in both datasets, the researchers wrote. Sensitivity analyses assessing such things as atrial or any arrhythmias and existing cardiovascular diagnoses showed similar results. 'This study provides class III evidence that lamotrigine did not significantly increase the 2-year cumulative incidence of VT/VF in adult patients with epilepsy,' the investigators wrote. They added that the findings 'do not support concerns regarding lamotrigine increasing arrhythmias.' No Risk in Patients With Heart Disease Using 2007-2019 data of Medicare-insured patients with epilepsy and aged at least 65 years, Ho and her team assessed 11,786 new users of lamotrigine (mean age, 74 years; 64% women) and 147,130 new users of levetiracetam (mean age, 77 years; 60% women). Results showed similar incidence of VA/SCA between the two treatment groups (7 vs 8.2 per 1000 person-years; P =.15) and a nonsignificantly higher adjusted HR of 0.84 for the lamotrigine vs levetiracetam groups ( P =.13). The HRs for VA and SCA individually were similar at 0.86 and 0.83, respectively. Secondary analyses showed no increased risk for VA/SCA in lamotrigine vs levetiracetam users with a baseline history of cardiac conditions, such as heart disease or heart failure. However, lamotrigine users with a baseline history of arrhythmias had a significantly reduced risk for VA/SCA (HR, 0.51) and for the use of any antiarrhythmic drugs (HR, 0.67). The investigators noted that although 'it has been postulated that lamotrigine increases the risk for VA/SCA because of its pharmacodynamic properties,' this assertion was based on studies that did not include older at-risk adults, including those with a history of heart disease. The new findings 'do not support' the current FDA warning label, they added. 'Lamotrigine is a very common and effective drug. Because of the FDA warning, it may limit its use in people who could benefit from it. Because they have a history of heart disease, they may not be able to get the prescription and this could affect the clinical management of epilepsy,' Ho said. Still, she recommended that clinicians evaluate patients on a case by case basis. 'At the end of the day, people in this age group may have other comorbidities and may be taking other medications. So I cannot just say, 'This is safe. Go ahead and use it,'' she said. Ho also noted that the findings may not be generalizable to younger patients because they used Medicare data of individuals older than 65 years or generalizable to those without epilepsy because the drug is also prescribed as a mood stabilizer for bipolar disorder. Two Studies, Same Conclusion In an accompanying editorial, Leah J. Blank, MD/MPH, assistant professor of neurology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, noted that both groups of investigators used real-world data and advanced analysis techniques to answer safety questions surrounding the drug. Although Blank pointed out both studies were observational and retrospective in nature, she wrote that the researchers accounted for all of that in their measures. 'Together, these data suggest that lamotrigine likely is safe in clinical practice and can continue to be used as an effective and well tolerated antiseizure medication,' Blank wrote. She also told Medscape Medical News that she prescribes the medication in her own practice. 'The studies were important because lamotrigine is an excellent antiseizure medication and it appears to be very well tolerated. Patients tend to like it and do well on it,' said Blank. 'It's reassuring that two different groups, using slightly different methods, came to the same conclusion that there is not an increased risk for cardiac events in people taking lamotrigine,' she said. Blank said it is worth noting that the human data do not support the FDA warning label. Asked whether it would be taking the new findings into consideration regarding its safety warning, a spokesperson for the FDA told Medscape Medical News that, in general, it does not comment on specific studies. Rather, the organization 'evaluates them as part of the body of evidence to further our understanding about a particular issue and assist in our mission to protect public health.' In addition, a representative for the AES told Medscape Medical News that the organization is not currently working on a statement based on these studies at this time.
