What healthcare-related news we're reading this week (November 24)
- Eric Fontana
- 8 minutes ago
- 11 min read
We don't just write things at Union Healthcare Insight—we are voracious readers, too. Welcome to our first edition of "What we're reading," in which we go around the virtual corridors of Union HQ finding out what healthcare (or healthcare-related) news been catching the eyes of the research team and why it resonated with us.
Read on for more.
Healthcare (and related) news highlights from this week
Brandon Aylward, Research Consultant
What's an article that caught your eye in the last week?
Why did this article resonate with you?
GLP-1s have been front and center in our blog content and latest board briefing. This piece stood out because it aligns directly with the growing shift from “Does the drug work?” to “Which drug works best for which patient?” As adoption surges and the GLP-1 market becomes more crowded, precision matching represents the next frontier. The ability to tailor GLP-1 therapies based on patient-specific variables could significantly improve outcomes, reduce trial-and-error prescribing, and ultimately reshape payer strategies. It also reflects a broader movement toward personalized medicine, where advanced analytics and real-world evidence guide more targeted and cost-effective care.
What are you watching out for related to this piece?
I’m closely watching how the convergence of new drug discovery, biomarker research, and advanced analytics accelerates the evolution of GLP-1 treatment, especially as multiple next-generation compounds enter late-stage pipelines. If precision-matching models become validated and scalable, the implications extend far beyond weight management. Similar frameworks could influence treatment selection for metabolic disease, cardiovascular risk reduction, NASH/MASH, and other conditions where GLP-1-based therapies are being actively studied. Ultimately, the intersection of data science and clinical pharmacology may not only transform the GLP-1 landscape but also set a precedent for how we personalize therapeutics across numerous high-burden chronic diseases.
Amanda Berra, Chief Education Officer
What's an article that caught your eye in the last week?
Something non-healthcare specific: Harvard Got It Wrong: AI Is NOT Killing Entry Level Jobs.
This article contains a good summary of recent back-and-forth about what impact AI is or isn’t having on entry-level jobs. To sum it up, there’s an “AI is the problem” narrative, e.g., a recent Stanford study that found that early-career workers in AI-exposed occupations have experienced a 16 percent relative decline in employment. Then, there is a “something else is the problem” angle: competing, non-AI-related theories about why entry-level hiring may have slowed in recent years. Specifically, macro-economic reasons for companies to slow down entry-level hiring, while (new for 2025) putting a positive spin on things by claiming to have tapped into AI-related efficiencies.
Why did this article resonate with you?
First, it’s just interesting. Second, it caused me to think that in the future, AI-infused labor market, we will need to think more creatively about the paths into the workforce for young people—they will need to get all the professional skills employers want, but employers won’t find it economically rational to provide those skills to the young people via employment. So young people will have to figure out ways to get those skills elsewhere.
This in turn reminded me of how, in the life sciences sector, a lot of pharmaceutical R&D is de facto offloaded to startups. Smaller companies take on the earliest, riskiest development work, and when something promising emerges, the big players step in to buy or license it (and become the employer of all the people).
Maybe the analogy is already clear, but basically what I’m thinking is maybe early-career development can pivot to focus more on entrepreneurship. Maybe the entry-level workforce of the future is doing a hell of a lot less report-writing and meeting scheduling, and a hell of a lot more product design, business-model-writing, fundraising, risk-taking, and building of sweat equity while running small service and tech businesses. The end goal here workforce-wise could be for these young people to sell the companies to bigger companies (and future employers) in the field where they want to build their careers. After all these grads are now arriving for the ‘interview,’ or M&A evaluation, with not only tested professional skills that the employer can put to work right away, but also some revenue for the employer to fold into its existing book of business.
What are you watching out for related to this piece?
I really hate thinking we are doomed because of AI. Let's look out for high schools, community colleges and four-year colleges/universities scaling way up on entrepreneurial tracks—incubators, mentor programs, funding matchups, even venture studios to help students and new grads to band together into teams, launch real projects, and learn by doing.
Eric Fontana, Senior Vice President, Research
What's an article that caught your eye in the last week?
A deja-vu piece from Politico, as it appears lawmakers are preparing for a second bite at the AI-regulation-moratorium apple: White House prepares executive order to block state AI laws. (Heads-up that you may need to register to read this article.)
Why did this article resonate with you?
Many of you will recall the controversial AI regulatory moratorium included in the House passed-version of the OBBBA (notably because some in the house didn’t catch the language due to not reading it before voting for it) that was removed before passage through the Senate. The provision limited states’ ability to regulate AI in any meaningful way for 10 years. And while it’s fair to assume the intent of this clause was to limit any hindrance to AI innovation (presumably including chips, business applications for LLMs, cryptocurrency and more) the potential for further reaching effects—intended or otherwise—concerns healthcare. According to Politico, what is different about this latest draft document compared to OBBBA’s draft language is a DOJ-run “AI Litigation Task Force” which would seemingly add meaningful teeth to challenge any state laws that stand in the way.
Combinations and permutations of broader concerns aside, the potential for a regulatory-moratorium clash with current state laws designed to pre-empt and protect patients from AI-related harm seems inevitable. We’ve already seen a subset of state-level efforts with such protections in mind, including California addressing both patient and insurance denial consumer protections, while Colorado, Utah and Massachusetts addressing algorithmic discrimination and informed consent on AI use in patient consultation and utilization review to varying degrees. If a federal override is proposed and passed, attention will quickly turn to how such state-level protective efforts might be rendered moot (brief aside: some states are examining the unintended consequences of their own laws anyway) and what the ripple effects of that could be. That’s hard to prognosticate without a plethora of precedent (pardon the alliteration) but I’d venture a guess that most regular Joes in the role of patient would appreciate efforts to protect the quality and experience of their healthcare, as opposed to AI advancement being the primary consideration.
What are you watching out for related to this piece?
Both the form of any proposed legislation and the public reaction to it. Recall that the public responded negatively when following the draft OBBBA passage through the House, leading to its removal. Will future efforts at similar moratoriums make any guarantees for consumer protection in healthcare, both clinical and financial, given healthcare represents such fertile ground for AI adoption? And would any future law attempt to treat use of AI in patient consultation versus health insurance applications (denials, prior authorization, claims adjudication, clinical case reviews) in a manner that considers potential misuse and negative outcomes? Will any federal legislation be time limited, like the draft OBBBA provision, or more permanently baked? So many questions, and only time will tell.
Tyler Ford, Senior Vice President, Strategy and Operations
What's an article that caught your eye in the last week?
US healthcare adjusts to the changing agenda (Note: the article is free to read with registration)
Why did this article resonate with you?
I'm always interested in perspectives on dealmaking and the flow of dollars in healthcare. In this case, it’s insight into private equity’s (PE) shifting focus away from rolling up independent medical groups—especially as reimbursement growth wanes—towards services with a stronger value proposition around cost management. This shift can be expected whether or not interest rates fall or overall M&A activity picks up. We might expect the most activity against two broad themes:
Scaled infrastructure: these are businesses that help reduce direct and indirect expenses by scaling critical input costs. For example, manufacturing businesses within pharma and medical devices, delivery and distribution, clinical trial management or execution, generalized outsourcing, and even cybersecurity. Interestingly, investor consensus appears to favor medical group managed services organizations (MSO) to regain steam after a few years of lost interest.
Consumer personalization: these are businesses across healthcare that broadly support the theme of facilitating consumer-driven experiences and choices in healthcare. The authors argue that over-indexing on the more politically-charged aspects of HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr’s Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) agenda like vaccine skepticism risks missing a bigger point on personalization. There’s growing momentum behind the idea that individual patients should be able to direct their treatment choices. That theme creates big opportunities for consumer-oriented solutions that provide choice, information, and configurable benefits.
What are you watching out for related to this piece?
The article took me down a few roads:
First, kudos to my Union colleagues Christopher and Amanda for nailing some of these themes back in March, when they called out the potential for renewed PE-investment interest related to MSOs and/or spaces where business fundamentals are stronger and more predictable while regulatory scrutiny is lighter.
Second, my antennae went up a bit about the long-term implication of too much consolidation in healthcare infrastructure. While consolidation often brings about short-term unit cost advantages, fewer players in the market in critical utility functions (for example, distribution) have a well-documented history of leading to inflation from monopoly effects.
But what really had me scratching my head was the look-back at the last 10+ years of PE. Specifically, if PE is really moving focus away from medical group roll-ups, how does the previous chapter of PE activity come to an end? What is PE going to do with all the provider-level groups they’ve been rolling up over the last 7-8 years. The strategic approach has been formulaic: eventually the buyer is either bigger/other PE, a health system, or big conglomerates (like Optum). However, if PE starts trying to “de-risk” their exposure to risky medical service revenue and begins shifting away from seeking provider acquisitions, what happens when the limited partners (the “LPs” or investors) need their money back?
One possibility is that rates fall, M&A picks up, macro forces win and it’s on to the next greater fool. Funding will free up and groups with rolled-up providers will find buyers who can lever up. Another answer could be that PE has to “eat its cooking”, values fall, and the health systems and conglomerates end up getting provider shares at valuations they can stomach. PE that invested across last 10 years catches the hot potato and their LPs lose.
Another speculative question: Do we see a new class of strategic buyer from the likes of big tech or the hyper-scalers, who think buying provider groups from PE gives them a living lab for AI deployment in a market segment that’s at least cash flow positive? Ignore whether it’s a good idea or not for now, but something like Amazon’s playbook, replicated by Google, Palantir…Tesla (?) leveraging their nosebleed valuations to fund acquisition of healthcare groups they believe they can transform with technology? I’m getting out-there with the speculation. The point is that it’s been a while since Big Tech has stepped back into healthcare and I wonder if AI gives them a new reason to try.
Elizabeth Grimes, Vice President, Market Lead
What's an article that caught your eye in the last week?
This piece from the New York Times on xenotransplantation—the use of animal organs in humans—specifically organs from genetically modified pigs: Scientists Grow More Hopeful About Ending a Global Organ Shortage.
Why did this article resonate with you?
My interest was piqued primarily for personal reasons. A close family member was recently the recipient of a life-saving transplant, and so I’m particularly grateful for the advancements being made in transplant medicine. I found the article to be especially interesting when paired with another by The New York Times earlier this year: A Push for More Organ Transplants Is Putting Donors at Risk. The ethical and moral debate around both human and animal donation can be deeply personal and both articles highlight real areas of concern and opportunities for improvement but, I was genuinely surprised at the public response. Many in the comments section described how their inclination was to remove themselves from the donor list. I get it, it’s a sensitive topic for many. It’s a reminder to me to remain continually aware of the broader thinking around how scientific advancements in one area could cause public sentiment to shift—negatively or positively.
What are you watching out for related to this piece?
While I’m looking forward to continued progress and scientific discoveries in transplant medicine, I’m also watching out for positive (and negative) changes to the human organ donation process in the US and to see if our already short supply of life saving organs will be further diminished through lack of education and/or a failure to visibly promote how the donation process actually works. There are, in many respects, some parallel themes with vaccines and in both cases public education and open dialogue remain foundationally important as medical and surgical advancement charges into new territory.
Chris Loumeau, Research Consultant
What's an article that caught your eye in the last week?
GoodRx Launches GLP-1 Telemedicine Subscription as Demand Surges (Note: Modern Healthcare, may require subscription)
Why did this article resonate with you?
The GLP-1 boom keeps spawning new business models in U.S. healthcare. GoodRx’s move into a $59-per-month GLP-1 tele-subscription feels like an inflection point. For years, GoodRx had adopted a niche “coupons + cash-pay affordability” model. It was never quite a care-delivery company, nor a PBM, nor a traditional healthcare retailer. However, this new approach steps directly into the direct primary care space, blending patient acquisition, virtual prescribing, and medication adherence support.
Two things stand out: First, GoodRx is normalizing a consumer-oriented pathway where GLP-1 access is delivered through a retail-style subscription service rather than a traditional clinician-anchored care relationship. Second, it’s a reminder of how quickly nontraditional market entrants are reorganizing the obesity-care space: clinical pathways, ongoing patient monitoring (RPM), and step-therapy guardrails are now being reconstructed outside the four walls of health systems—and often without payer alignment.
A couple of elements of this are worth keeping an eye on. First, how long the “cash-pay + telemedicine” GLP-1 model can survive alongside tightening insurer UM and rising Federal scrutiny. If Medicare and Medicaid increasingly cover GLP-1s—and commercial plans continue to restrict access—retail telehealth entrants may find themselves pulled into prior-auth and/or denials-management work or, conversely, face tighter guardrails that limit their ability to write prescriptions.
What are you watching out for related to this piece?
Whether GoodRx or similar platforms/market entrants evolve beyond an access-first model and begin partnering with payers or health systems—or incorporate more structured outcome tracking around weight maintenance, comorbidity management, and long-term care & follow-up. More strategically, the landscape is now shifting again as Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk roll out direct-to-employer purchasing programs for GLP-1s. These manufacturer-led channels create an entirely separate access pathway—one that also sits outside traditional provider workflows but is aimed at benefit sponsors rather than consumers. If GoodRx ends up gaining meaningful traction in the market, it will sit alongside manufacturer–employer partnerships as part of a broader trend: multiple non-provider “front doors” emerging for GLP-1 therapy / obesity-management care, each increasingly detached from traditional health system care teams / physician-patient relationships.
Jordan Peterson, Research Consultant
What's an article that caught your eye in the last week?
Why did this article resonate with you?
During prep for our upcoming State of Employer Landscape Board Briefing (quick plug: register for the December 11 Board Briefing with Christopher Kerns and me) I’ve been wondering how the White House’s recent MFN drug pricing announcement could directly (or indirectly) impact employer spending on GLP-1s. It’s no secret that employer healthcare spending has been climbing steadily over the past few years, and recent estimates are projected to trend above recent historical highs. There’s a lot that goes into rising costs, but employers commonly call out the increasing use of GLP-1s as the main driver. Drugs typically tend to be widely used or expensive. But GLP-1s are unique as a cost driver because they’re both widely used and expensive (GLP-1s cost around $1,000 per month for many users). And with their increasing promise as a paradigm shifter for numerous highly prevalent chronic diseases (obesity and diabetes most notably, but others as well) there are limited prospects for near-term cost-relief for employers. But now the White House has stated that its recent agreements with Lilly and Novo of GLP-1s would bring the price down from an average of $1,086 per month to $346 when purchased through TrumpRx.
What are you watching out for related to this piece?
As the article calls out, the agreements with Lilly and Novo Nordisk are aimed at Medicare and won’t directly affect most employer-sponsored health plans. Still, we’ll be watching to see if (and how) employers respond to the lower GLP-1 prices, including whether they shift their coverage of these drugs and cost containment strategies in the meantime.
Marina Renton, Research Consultant
What's an article that caught your eye in the last week?
Unfortunately, a sobering story about the state of essential services at rural hospitals: Rural hospitals’ labor and delivery closures increased in 2025
Why did this article resonate with you?
At Union, we’ve recently covered many of the challenges in rural health care, including margin pressures and a seemingly never-ending string of announcements of hospital closures. This piece highlights the amplification of an already concerning trend: closing labor and delivery units in rural hospitals, forcing pregnant women to travel further and incur greater risk to deliver. These added pressures take place against a backdrop of troubling maternal and infant death outcomes in the US, with mothers in rural areas at a 9% greater risk of severe morbidity and mortality compared with their urban counterparts.
What are you watching out for related to this piece?
Will the Rural Health Transformation Program (the $50B earmarked for rural health initiatives) really have a meaningful impact on L&D unit closures? Or will there need to be additional efforts to support essential rural-maternal services? Will we see more momentum around alternative care models that aim to fill widening gaps in rural settings, such as having family doctors deliver babies? If so, what will the implications be for staffing, training, incentivizing and outcomes?