UnitedHealthcare has notified Medicare Advantage patients in Rhode Island that they may lose coverage at several local hospitals if a deal is not reached with Brown University Health by July 1. The potential loss of coverage would impact Hasbro Children’s, Newport, Miriam, and Rhode Island Hospitals, but not the physicians of Brown University Health.
A spokesperson for Brown University Health said, “In addition to a modest reimbursement rate increase to cover the costs of caring for their members, we asked United to eliminate their administrative policies that deviate from traditional Medicare, such as unnecessary prior approval and utilization management, that cause frustration for patients and result in extra cost to our healthcare system.
Since both parties held firm in their positions, we mutually decided to end our Medicare Advantage hospital contract effective June 30, 2025.”
UnitedHealthcare stated that its top priority is to reach a long-term agreement that is both affordable and maintains competitive benefits for its Medicare Advantage members. They hope Brown University Health shares their commitment to reaching an agreement that provides continued network access to its hospitals for people enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans.
If an agreement is not reached, UnitedHealthcare’s Medicare Advantage members may find themselves paying more to get care at Brown University Health’s Rhode Island-based hospitals. The change would affect subscribers relying on Brown University Health’s hospitals, but physicians from Brown University Health will remain in the Medicare Advantage network regardless of the ongoing contract negotiations. The current agreement between UnitedHealthcare and Brown University Health remains effective through June 30, 2025.
Should the negotiations fail, Brown University Health’s hospitals will exit the network for all Medicare Advantage plans, including Dual Special Needs Plan and Group Retiree plans, effective July 1, 2025. Saint Anne’s and Morton Hospitals in Massachusetts, both owned by Brown University Health, will not be impacted by the potential contract impasse.
Learn more about us.
Led by editor-in-chief, Stephanie Johnson, we take great pride in the quality of our content. Our writers create original, accurate, engaging content that is free of ethical concerns or conflicts. Our rigorous editorial process includes editing for accuracy, recency, and clarity.
Learn more about our process.
Join the ‘Self Made’ newsletter, earn more with freedom, and discover true wealth.

SelfEmployed.com is an independent, advertising-supported publisher and comparison service. We are compensated in exchange for placement of sponsored products and services, or by you clicking on certain links posted on our site. Therefore, this compensation may impact how, where and in what order products appear within listing categories, except where prohibited by law for our mortgage, home equity and other home lending products. Other factors, such as our own proprietary website rules and whether a product is offered in your area or at your self-selected credit score range, can also impact how and where products appear on this site. While we strive to provide a wide range of offers, SelfEmployed does not include information about every financial or credit product or service.
Sign in to your account
Username or Email Address
Password
Remember Me

source

Indiana University (IU) selected Ecore Athletic, a leading manufacturer of performance flooring and athletic surfaces, as its flooring partner for the recent renovation of its Student Recreational Sports Center on the school’s flagship Bloomington campus. The university is seeing positive early results from the change, including increased student engagement at the facility.  
Driven by student demand for more strength and functional training areas, the renovation included the installation of Ecore Athletic’s Performance Beast Plus flooring system, paired with Modzilla 32 ShockPad tiles. IU chose Ecore’s flooring solution for its high durability, impact absorption and brand-customizable design, all of which are critical elements for a facility that sees over one million visits annually.
“The Ecore floor allows us to take the impact of any activity, protect the subfloor and keep students focused on their well-being – not on whether the floor is holding up,” said Nick Horton, IU’s director of service operations.
A key aspect of the installation includes 16 custom lifting platforms, each featuring IU’s logo inlaid directly into the surface. These platforms are in near-constant use, underscoring rising student interest in strength training.
“There was some concern early on that 16 platforms might be too many,” said Brady Bowdoin, assistant director of personal training and wellness at IU. “It turns out 16 is not enough.”
In addition to performance upgrades, the renovation focused on improving space utilization and inclusivity. Former racquetball courts were converted into open training zones outfitted with turf and rubber flooring (another move in line with fitness industry trends). The result has been broader student engagement and increased diversity in facility users, IU reports.
“One of the biggest changes is our user group,” Bowdoin said. “Before, it was mostly traditional gym-goers. Now, we’re seeing students from all backgrounds using the space. What we thought might deter some users has made the space more welcoming.”

Ecore, which upcycles waste rubber into high-performance flooring solutions, has worked with top athletic, wellness and commercial fitness facilities including GymNation and East Bank Club.
Ecore’s Performance Beast Plus product is a 10.5mm performance flooring system featuring a 2.5mm wear layer fusion-bonded to an 8mm vulcanized composition rubber (VCR) base, and is slip-resistant to reduce injury risk in heavy-use zones.
Underneath, Modzilla ShockPad tiles provide an additional layer of impact absorption and subfloor protection with 32mm interlocking tiles that float over existing flooring. The IU team chose the Modzilla underlayment in part because they needed to float the new flooring over an existing court.
“This project is a great example of what can be accomplished when manufacturers, dealer partners and facility leaders are all aligned,” said Ryan Clavenna, Ecore Athletic’s territory representative.
Keep pulse with the latest in fitness news.
Sign Up for Our Newsletter Trusted by 100k+ Fitness, Wellness & Health Executives.

Athletech News provides comprehensive media coverage of the most impactful news and trends shaping the fitness and wellness sector. Our newsletter and website cover emerging fitness technology, brick and mortar gyms, wellness trends, new fitness formats and the industry’s economic outlook.
COPYRIGHT© ATHLETECH MEDIA GROUP LLC 2022, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Keep pulse with the latest in fitness news.
Keep pulse with the latest in fitness news.

source

In the 2010s, economics discussions went mainstream. Blogs and (especially) social media meant that data-driven, high-level debates about economic issues were no longer confined to the op-ed pages of the Wall Street Journal and the talking heads on CNBC. This was a good thing, but I think it had some unintended consequences. One is that a lot of the narratives that made sense in 2012 or 2015 got embedded into the popular consciousness, and have stayed there even though the underlying reality has changed.
One big example of this is wage stagnation. In the early 2010s, lots of people “knew” that American middle-class wages had stagnated since the early 1970s, with only a brief temporary revival in the late 90s. And so naturally, a lot of discussions revolved around how to fix that. But even as we were having those arguments, wages accelerated again. Now, when we look back with the benefit of ten more years of hindsight, the years since the mid-1990s look like a bumpy but substantial increase:
Another big narrative, related to the wage stagnation idea, is that service costs are relentlessly rising in the U.S. economy. You’ve probably seen some version of Mark Perry’s famous “price changes” chart:
This chart tells a simple, powerful story: Services get more expensive, while physical goods get cheaper. Health care, education, and child care went up in price faster than wages, while cars, clothing, electronics, and toys got more affordable.
And the story was compelling because it came with a simple theory to explain it. This was the notion that manufacturing productivity naturally increases faster than service productivity. Conceptually, it seems easier to figure out how to rearrange production processes in a factory, and apply new machine tools, than to figure out new ways to educate kids or take care of Grandma.
And during the 20th century, this principle held true. For example, from 1987 to 2011, manufacturing productivity more than doubled, while overall productivity increased by only 70%:
In fact, if you look on Wikipedia’s page for “Baumol’s Effect”, also known as Baumol Cost Disease, it lists this productivity divergence as an explanation for diverging costs.
If service costs rise relentlessly while manufacturing costs fall, it portends a grim future — one where we have cheap gadgets, but where the big necessities of modern middle-class life are increasingly out of reach. And in fact, that was the story a lot of people were telling in the mid-2010s.
That story led to a certain techno-pessimism. If technology could give us cheap gadgets, but couldn’t make the basics of modern life any cheaper, what good was it? The failure of educational technologies like online education only seemed to drive the point home — it seemed like we’d always just be stuck with a teacher giving lectures on a board to 20 or 30 kids. Though some people dreamed of robot nurses and nannies, these seemed very far from materializing.
It also fed into cynicism about trade. If China gave us cheap gadgets but we were still struggling to pay for health care and education, wasn’t globalization sort of a booby prize? I think we see echoes of that sentiment in the GOP’s willingness to embrace Trump’s tariffs.
On the policy side, rising service costs led to two different big ideas.
First, if technology couldn’t make services cheaper, some people (including myself) reasoned, we should use policy to make them cheaper. Perhaps deregulation was the key — many libertarians blamed rising service costs on a policy of “cost disease socialism” that restricted supply while subsidizing demand, implying that we just had to eliminate the supply restrictions and cut the subsidies and the market would do its thing. Progressives advocated a more statist approach — after all, most other countries have some form of national health insurance, and they all have cheaper health costs than America does, so perhaps government bargaining power was the key to driving costs down. (Personally, I supported doing both approaches in parallel.)
The second big policy idea said that what we want isn’t necessarily for services to cost less to produce; what we want is for services to cost less to the people who consume them. Productivity improvements in the service sector would just throw human beings out of work, as they had done in manufacturing; instead, a future where everyone gets a high-paying job taking care of everyone else sounded pretty good to some progressives.
So how do we make services cheap to consume, but keep using “care jobs” as the future of good-paying middle-class work? Taxes and subsidies were how progressives planned to square that circle. If rich people could be taxed at much higher rates, that money could be used to create higher wages and more jobs for care workers and lower prices for consumers. For example, here’s what Heather Boushey, one of Biden’s most influential economic advisors, told the Aspen Institute in 2021:
“This year has taught us all, across the nation, how the care economy is the foundation of our economy,” Boushey remarked…Boushey reflects on the twin crises of a lack of good care and a lack of good jobs and notes that investing in the care economy creates a positive feedback loop that allows family caregivers to find quality care and care workers to find quality jobs.
Natalie Foster and Amanda Newman wrote that “policy [should] contribute to building a care economy that dignifies the work of caregivers and expands access to quality, affordable care”. Felicia Wong of the Roosevelt Institute endorsed the idea of universal child care as part of a new New Deal.
This idea represented a substantial portion of Biden’s economic plans. The Build Back Better bill — which never made it into law — would have created a national family and medical leave program and a universal pre-kindergarten education, while heavily subsidizing child care and various in-home services. The total price tag would have been in the hundreds of billions of dollars. This big push for service subsidies was mostly defeated in Congress, though some health care subsidies did make it into the (misnamed) Inflation Reduction Act.
In other words, the trend of increasing service costs defined many of our economic debates for a decade. There was just one small problem — by the time we started talking about how to address this trend, the trend had changed.
I’ve been meaning to write this post for a while, but what prompted me to finally do it was when Matt Yglesias posted a very nice chart of health spending as a percentage of GDP. Here’s a version of that chart with two different measures of health spending:
Note that “personal consumption expenditures” includes spending on behalf of consumers by the government and by nonprofits, so this isn’t just household spending on health care — it’s all of it.
We also see the same pattern when we look only at hospital services — the item whose cost went up the most on the Mark Perry chart:
So what we see is that until around 1990, health spending rapidly ate up a bigger and bigger portion of our national income. Then the increase slowed down, but it did go up some more until around 2009. But after that, it leveled off; in 2024, Americans didn’t spend a greater percent of their income on health care than they did in 2009. And in fact, the increase since 1990 has been pretty modest — if you look only at the service portion of health care (the blue line), it’s gone up by about 1.5% of GDP over 34 years.
OK, so, this is total spending, not the price of health care. Is America spending less because we’re getting less care? No. In cost-adjusted terms, Americans have been getting more and more health care services over the years:
What’s happening is that although health care prices have still been going up, they’ve been going up more slowly than before. Here are health service prices relative to the overall price level, as measured with the PCE:
You can see that costs level off in 2009, and then actually drop after the pandemic relative to other costs. This doesn’t mean health care got cheaper after 2020; what it means is that health care prices rose more slowly than other prices did.
If you use the CPI (as Mark Perry’s chart does), things look a little different — medical costs keep rising faster than overall costs during the 2010s, but then slow down quite a bit after the pandemic:
Why the difference between CPI and PCE? Two main reasons. First of all, health care itself is a bigger component of PCE than of CPI, while CPI weights housing more heavily instead. So the fact that health care prices have gone up faster than housing prices means that CPI will show a greater increase of health prices relative to the total. Second, PCE tries harder to adjust for quality improvements. Health care has gone up a lot in quality over the years, and this has been hard to capture with traditional price measures. This is from the conclusion of a Brookings literature review from 2016:
Traditional measures of productivity growth in the health sector most likely understate it, because they don’t adjust prices for substitution from higher to lower cost inputs and because they don’t take account of changes in quality over time…The evidence to date suggests that adjusting health care expenditures for changes in quality leads to a significant reduction in the rise in health prices over time, and, indeed, these prices may even have declined relative to other prices.
PCE has this problem less than CPI does, so it shows more of a cost slowdown.
OK but anyway, what we really care about at the end of the day is affordability — i.e., how much health care an average America can buy. A good way of measuring affordability is to look at median income divided by an index of health care prices — in other words, how much health care the typical American can buy with their annual income.
When we look at this, we see that health care got steadily less affordable until around 1990, then leveled off, and now has been getting more affordable since around 2012:
So overall, health care is probably now more affordable for the average American than it was in 2000 — in fact, it’s now about as affordable as it was in the early 1980s. That doesn’t mean that every type of care is more affordable, of course. But the narrative that U.S. health costs just go up and up relentlessly hasn’t reflected reality for a while now.
Why have health care costs stopped going up rapidly? Some credit the cost control provisions of the Affordable Care Act of 2009 (aka Obamacare). This is from 2019:
March 23, the ninth anniversary of the ACA’s passage, presents a good opportunity to examine its legacy on cost control…Fast forward to December 2018, when [the Office of the Actuary of the Department of Health and Human Services] released the official tabulation of health care spending in 2017. The bottom line: cumulatively from 2010 to 2017 the ACA reduced health care spending a total of $2.3 trillion…[H]ealth care spending in 2017 was $2,000 less per person than it was projected to be. And for the 176 million Americans who have private employer-sponsored insurance, their lower premiums averaged just under $1,000 per person.
Another possibility is that Americans just got tired of paying more and more for health care, and started balking at higher prices. People who made excuses for high American health costs claimed that it was just an income effect — that as nations get richer, they simply spend a higher and higher percent of their income on health care. But as I pointed out, at some point this explanation has to fail, because it can’t be true that health care eventually consumes all of a rich nation’s income, to the exclusion of everything else.
It could just be that Americans were willing to pay more for health care as they got richer, up to a point, but that at some point they said “OK, that’s enough.”
It’s not just health care whose costs have leveled off. College tuition is no longer getting more and more expensive every year. In fact, in inflation adjusted terms, tuition has actually fallen since the pandemic:
Here’s another way of visualizing that same data, and you can see that adding in housing and food doesn’t really change the story:
Of course this doesn’t include financial aid (nor does Mark Perry’s chart, nor do official inflation numbers). Financial aid has been going up, especially at private schools. When you include that, it turns out that private four-year nonprofits are actually less expensive in inflation-adjusted terms than they were in the mid-2000s, even without accounting for rising incomes:
For public schools it’s about the same:
In other words, higher education has been getting more affordable for years, and the decrease in affordability in the late 2000s and 2010s was significantly overstated. The popular narrative that college is getting less and less affordable is wrong, and it needs to change.
Why are college costs going down now? It’s basically a story about demand. College enrollment peaked in 2010 and began to fall:
This enrollment decline happened for every age group of students. It wasn’t just because the number of young people in America plateaued, either; enrollment fell as a proportion of young people.
As for why enrollment rates declined, that’s an open question. My own hypothesis is that college costs rose and the college wage premium fell until a market equilibrium was reached.
It’s not just true that service costs have stopped exploding in America. The narrative that service productivity is stagnant, while manufacturing experiences fast productivity growth, has been flipped on its head since 2008. Manufacturing productivity abruptly flatlined around the time of the Great Recession, while overall productivity has risen:
This implies that service productivity growth has accelerated. And indeed, if you look at specific industries, you see a lot of services where productivity is going up quickly in America:
Now, these changing trends don’t mean that services are cheap and we can stop thinking about service costs. First of all, there are still some services that are getting less affordable over time — most notably, child care. Second, the recent mild increases in affordability for health care and higher education haven’t erased the big cost increases that happened in the 1980s, 1990s, and early 2000s; Americans still pay a lot more for these things than Europeans or Asians do, relative to their incomes. So there’s still probably scope to bring down the costs of health care and college.
But with all that said, the change in the trends in service costs and service productivity mean that our debates about these topics need to change.
First of all, services don’t look as resistant to technological improvement as we once thought. The increased adoption of IT in health care is probably having a big effect. We can probably apply that insight to child care and K-12 education as well. And the introduction of AI into education — and everything else — will probably accelerate the trend even more.
The possibility of technology-driven productivity improvements in service industries also means that we don’t have to resort to expensive subsidies in order to make services both better-paying for workers and cheaper for consumers. Instead, we can encourage technology adoption, and enjoy higher wages and lower prices, just like we did with manufacturing in the 20th century.
(As for where the jobs of the future will come from, it’s looking more likely that professional jobs, rather than care jobs, are the next big thing.)
Falling service costs should also make us more optimistic about capitalism, and about the future of the middle class. For the last decade and a half, a lot of our economic debates have been premised on the idea that the American economy is fundamentally broken, and that life just keeps getting more and more expensive for regular people. That’s looking a lot less true than it did in 2012.
We spent a long time talking about how service costs were eating the world, and I don’t expect that narrative to disappear overnight just because I posted one blog post with a lot of charts. But it’s well past time for our discussions on this topic to start shifting in response to new information.
Share

Years ago a network scientist named Samuel Arbesman wrote a book about this kind of thing. How there are facts that change constantly — the weather — so we know we need to check the latest. And there are facts that never change — the names of the planets — so we know we don’t need to bother checking on them. But there’s another category of fact he called "mesofacts" (a term which obviously failed to catch on) for facts that change over the span of a few decades and people seem poorly suited cognitively to deal with because nobody puts a Google Calendar reminder for 2035 to check the current consensus on Industrial Policy.
One unclear aspect of this interesting essay is whether it is written from the point of view of the average American household income or the median American household income. In other words, are we talking about households making $106,270 or $80,610? There’s a great gap in disposable income between those two figures.
Also, I see a recurring insensitivity to past inflation. The idea that prices haven’t gone up in the last five years doesn’t mean that the pain has gone away. it just means that the thumb screws are no longer being tightened, after reaching the level of torture in the past. Economists seem to think that the pain of past inflation and (a continuing inflated status) evaporates instantaneously.
OTOH, it is refreshing to learn that both American higher education and American health care are somewhat responsive to market forces.
No posts
Ready for more?

source

Advertise Inquiries | About Us | | EventsSubscribe
Republican lawmakers are reportedly shifting their focus to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) as their next major legislative target, following recent debates over Medicaid. Discussions surrounding potential changes to the ACA have gained momentum, with some members of Congress signaling interest in revisiting provisions of the healthcare law. This development comes amid broader conversations about healthcare reform and federal spending priorities.
In related health news, a new report from the Maha Commission has drawn attention to emerging public health concerns. The report highlights issues ranging from improper use of neti pots to risks associated with certain dietary trends, such as increased consumption of beef tallow. These findings aim to inform policymakers and the public about potential health risks while encouraging further research into these areas.
Newsflash | Powered by GeneOnline AI
Source: GO-AI-ne1
Date: May 30, 2025
Subscribe to receive updates.
Your Email *
Your Password *
Your Email

source

The Alaska Legislature recently sent a strong and unified message to Washington, D.C.: Don’t let enhanced premium tax credits expire. These credits, expanded through pandemic-era relief efforts and extended under the Inflation Reduction Act, have helped make health insurance more affordable for thousands of Alaskans. Without congressional action, they will expire at the end of the year, putting access to care and financial security at risk for many families across our state.
At Premera Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alaska, we see the real-world impact of these subsidies every day. They’ve helped small-business owners, independent workers, caregivers, and rural Alaskans afford health coverage for the first time. For a state with some of the highest health care costs in the country, this support isn’t just helpful, it’s essential.
We support the Alaska Legislature’s recent resolution urging Congress to extend these enhanced subsidies. It’s a rare and welcome moment of bipartisan consensus in Juneau, because lawmakers understand what’s at stake. If Congress doesn’t act, more than 23,000 Alaskans could see their premiums rise, sometimes doubling, tripling, or worse. Some could see increases up to fivefold, according to Rep. Genevieve Mina, citing state estimates. That would be devastating.
Without these tax credits, many Alaskans will be forced to choose between health insurance and other necessities like housing, food, or fuel. Others may go without coverage altogether. The result? Delayed care, worse health outcomes, and more financial stress, particularly for rural and underserved communities that already face barriers to care.
The expiration of these subsidies would also shift costs in the wrong direction. More uninsured Alaskans means greater reliance on emergency rooms, more uncompensated care, and increased strain on providers and hospitals already under pressure. Let’s not let that happen to our neighbors and loved ones.
At Premera, we are committed to improving access to affordable, quality care for all Alaskans. That means advocating for policies that put people first, especially those that help reduce the cost of coverage while improving long-term health outcomes. The enhanced premium tax credits do exactly that. They are working, and they should be extended.
We are especially grateful to state Rep. Mina and U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski for their excellent leadership on this issue. Their advocacy reflects a deep understanding of the real challenges Alaskans face and a commitment to practical, bipartisan solutions.
This is not a partisan issue. It’s a pocketbook issue. It’s a public health issue. And for Alaska’s families, it’s a matter of stability and peace of mind.
We urge Alaska’s congressional delegation to lead the charge and fight for an extension of the enhanced premium tax credits.
Our communities are counting on it.
Kristin Meadows is general manager and vice president of the individual market for Premera Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alaska. The company and its predecessors have operated in Alaska since 1952.
The views expressed here are the writer’s and are not necessarily endorsed by the Anchorage Daily News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)adn.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Read our full guidelines for letters and commentaries here.
1
2
3
4
5
Anchorage Daily News
300 W. 31st Ave.
Anchorage, Alaska, 99503

source