The Most Boring Trip
May 5, 2026
|
|
Welcome to TrustWorks On Call, here with your healthcare business and strategy 411 for the week. If you enjoy our work, please consider forwarding it along to a friend and encouraging them to subscribe.
This week, we go Beyond the Whiteboard to show the relative scale of the largest healthcare (and healthcare-adjacent) companies, before Dialing In on the real bottleneck limiting primary care. But first the news, leading off a story President Trump must be sick of, based on how he described a recent flight with Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz as “the most boring trip” ever.
|
Behind the Headlines
Unpacking the forces driving healthcare's biggest stories.
|
1. Trump names third surgeon general nominee.
- Last Thursday, President Trump withdrew Dr. Casey Means’ nomination for surgeon general, which stalled after losing the support of three Republican Senators, and announced her replacement as Dr. Nicole Saphier, a radiologist with Memorial Sloan Kettering.
- Dr. Saphier serves as the director of breast imaging at MSK Monmouth, is a frequent Fox News contributor, and hosts a podcast titled “Wellness Unmasked.”
TrustWorks Take: President Trump’s ideal surgeon general would be someone who can speak the language of the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement, which features heavy strains of vaccine skepticism, while still being traditional enough to obtain Senate approval. Despite being a MAHA favorite and successful influencer, Dr. Means did not satisfy this balance because her past statements against vaccines turned off the influential Senator Bill Cassidy and other moderate Republicans. Dr. Saphier appears to be a savvier choice, having established herself as both a supporter of vaccination in general, yet a critic of specific vaccines and policies.
Trump’s ideal surgeon general might just be one he never has to think about again. As underscored by him telling Dr. Oz “to work out the details” and stop boring him, Trump is not a “healthcare guy” and has delegated most healthcare policymaking to Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his allies. Although the surgeon general is a low-impact role with virtually no policymaking powers, the position personifies the federal government’s efforts to communicate public health and science to the public. An empty chair over a year through this presidential term is a fitting symbol of how public health policy has languished under the leadership of President Trump and Health Secretary Kennedy.
|
|
|
2. Cigna plans to exit ACA exchange market.
- During its Q1 2026 earnings call last Thursday, Cigna announced that it will no longer participate in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) individual exchange health insurance market, starting next year.
- Cigna’s quarterly profit on all operations was up 25 percent year-over-year, but incoming CEO and current COO Brian Evanko said the decision to sunset their ACA business stemmed from “a deliberate strategy to sharpen our focus on key platforms.”
TrustWorks Take: The ACA exchange markets are experiencing a particularly volatile moment, but Cigna’s decision to rationalize its portfolio fits into a broader trend among insurers to limit exposure to rising utilization rates. Medicare Advantage (MA) insurers have also retrenched significantly in 2026, as the largest payers pivot from prioritizing revenue growth to per-plan profitability. In pursuit of this end, Cigna sold its 3M-member Medicare business last year to Health Care Services Corporation, a Blues plan licensee, and is now sunsetting its 369K-member exchange business to focus on its 18M-member commercial group business.
Despite the retrenchment, MA beneficiaries still had plenty of plans to choose from this year, and MA plans still earn the best margins per member. The ACA exchange market is trending in the opposite direction. There are fewer carriers, rising premiums, and a risk pool increasingly skewed toward higher-cost members. Early indicators, including declining enrollment and a shift toward lower-premium Bronze plans, point to growing affordability strain and potential adverse selection. Publicly traded hospital chains have also started to report higher proportions of uninsured care and weaker patient volumes. This destabilization of the exchanges risks becoming a death spiral, with severe ramifications for providers and patients, if it continues without a policy intervention. |
|
|
3. Medical and graduate students face new student loan caps.
- The Department of Education finalized a rule on Thursday capping federal student loans for narrowly defined “professional” degrees, including medical school, at $50K per year and $200K total, effective July 1.
- Other graduate-level degrees, including those obtained by most advanced practice providers (APPs), are limited to $20K per year and $100K total.
- This rule, which was implemented as a partial pay-for from last summer’s tax reform law, is supposed to save taxpayers $409B by reducing how much the federal government loans and forgives.
|
TrustWorks Take: Last year, the average annual cost of medical school tuition and fees reached nearly $60K, up 110 percent over two decades, and the total cost of attendance for a school like Columbia is estimated at around $120K per year. Even the average medical student will now have to secure private financing, whether through private loans, grants, or personal finances, to attend medical school. The cascading effects of the debts incurred by the high cost of medical school serve as both symptoms and causes of our healthcare system’s price problem, pushing doctors into higher-paying specialties and rallying them against payment reforms. Capping medical students’ loans should slow tuition growth (which has already slowed significantly in recent years), but it primarily does so at the cost of further burdening medical students. This is a missed opportunity for a broader reevaluation of how we fund the education of our future medical professionals. |
|
|
Beyond the Whiteboard
Visualizing key trends from the healthcare industry
|
What Scale Gets You
A unique aspect of the healthcare delivery is its inseverable ties to local settings and physical infrastructure. Health systems’ services are limited to the regional markets they serve, and even the largest systems only expand into new markets at great expense. No other healthcare subsector faces such constraints, a dynamic which has become especially relevant thanks to the disruptive competition brought on by vertical integration. Some of the largest companies in the world are competing with health systems to serve the same patients and employ the same physicians. To illustrate: UnitedHealth Group (UHG) increased its revenue by $124B in three years; Kaiser Permanente, the largest health system, has a total revenue of $128B. It took UHG only three years to grow a Kaiser Permanente-sized business within itself.
Organizational scale determines financing and access to capital, allowing large companies to place bigger bets and absorb worse losses in pursuit of innovation. This is especially relevant in the race to deploy AI. To compete, health systems need to capitalize on their local presence and relationships with patients and their communities, which is hard for an Amazon, UHG, or Walmart to replicate. These relationships can then be supported by technology partnerships to enhance the sophistication of health systems’ care delivery “product,” effectively leveling the playing field.
|
|
|
Dialing In
Sharing insights from our work with clients
The Primary Care Bottleneck
We are working with a large multispecialty group that wants to expand its primary care footprint, and the CMO identified their problem as primarily one of recruitment: “If we could just hire more primary care doctors…” everything else would work out. This type of thinking inevitably leads to discussions of medical education pipelines, imbalanced preferences for certain specialties and geographies, and plenty of other matters physician groups cannot control. I pushed back with a slightly provocative framing that throws recruitment out of the window. “Let’s say you were under a physician hiring freeze, how could you still expand access?”
In many cases, the capacity physician leaders want for their group already exists internally but has not been fully activated. Organizations have more tools, team members, and technology than ever before. We have been talking about physicians doing only what they can do for twenty years, in part because we have not sufficiently achieved this standard. In that time, APPs have flourished and technological advancements like AI have hit the scene, and yet we are still largely operating under the same care model. Patients have made it clear that their vision of improved access is faster responses, more convenience, and fewer unnecessary visits. Not everything requires a visit, and not every answer requires a physician, yet most primary care models still behave as if both are true. That gap, between how care is delivered and what is truly needed or desired, is the bottleneck we are really trying to solve.
|
|