Poll: 7 in 10 Americans say healthcare denials and insurance profits to blame for UHC CEO's death | Fortune

WASHINGTON (AP) — Most Americans believe health insurance profits and coverage denials share responsibility for the killing of UnitedHealthcare’s CEO — although not as much as the person who pulled the trigger, according to a new poll.

In the survey from the NORC at the University of Chicago, about 8 in 10 U.S. adults said the person who committed the killing had “a great deal” or “a moderate amount” of responsibility for the Dec. 4 shooting of Brian Thompson.

UnitedHealthcare has said Mangione was not a client.

About 7 in 10 adults say that denials for health care coverage by insurance companies, or the profits made by health insurance companies, also bear at least “a moderate amount” of responsibility for Thompson’s death. Younger Americans are particularly likely to see the murder as the result of a confluence of forces rather than just one person’s action.

Americans see a wide range of factors contributing to UHC CEO’s killing

The poll finds hat the story of the slaying is being followed widely. About 7 in 10 said they had heard or read “a lot” or “some” about Thompson’s death.

Multiple factors were seen as responsible. About half in the poll believe that at least “a moderate amount” of blame is rooted in wealth or income inequality, although they did not think other factors like political divisions in the U.S. held the same level of responsibility.

Patients and doctors often complain about coverage denials and other complications interfering with care, especially for serious illnesses like cancer and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or ALS. Insurance industry critics frequently point to company profits in questioning whether the interests of patients are their top focus.

UnitedHealthcare made more than $16 billion in profit last year, before interest and taxes, on $281 billion in revenue. Insurers frequently note that most of the revenue they bring in goes back out the door to pay for care. UnitedHealthcare said this month that it pays about 90% of medical claims when they are submitted. The insurer has not provided details about how many claims that involved.

Age-related differences about who is to blame.

For young people, blame is spread equally between insurers and the killer

Americans under 30 are especially likely to think a mix of factors is to blame for Thompson’s death. They say that insurance company denials and profits are about as responsible as Thompson’s killer for his death. About 7 in 10 U.S. adults between 18 and 29 say “a great deal” or “a moderate amount” of responsibility falls on profits made by health insurance companies, denials of health care coverage by health insurance companies, or the person who committed the killing.

Young people are also the least likely age group to say “a great deal” of responsibility falls on the person who committed the killing. Only about 4 in 10 say that, compared with about 6 in 10 between 30 and 59. Roughly 8 in 10 adults over 60 say that person deserves “a great deal” of responsibility.

About two-thirds of young people place at least a moderate level of blame on wealth or income inequality, in general.

The poll of 1,001 adults was conducted Dec. 12-16, 2024, using a sample drawn from NORC’s probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for adults overall is plus or minus 4.2 percentage points.

People under 30 are more likely to place blame on the media, with 54% saying that compared with about one-third of older adults.

Poll: 7 in 10 Americans say healthcare denials and insurance profits to blame for UHC CEO's death | Fortune

Don’t overlook Wall Street’s role in health insurance greed | STAT

By Wendell Potter 

Dec. 11, 2024

Wendell Potter is former VP, of corporate communications, Cigna, and publisher of HEALTH CARE un-covered. 

Decades ago, the health insurance business put in place a dike to hide and contain the public’s disdain for for-profit health insurers and to keep reformers at bay. Now, that dike might collapse.

As the former VP of corporate communications at Cigna, I played a role in building and fortifying that dike. Every year, my colleagues and I across the industry devoted massive amounts of money — money our customers paid us to cover their medical care — to lobbying, campaign contributions, deceptive PR campaigns, and even charitable donations to buy goodwill. All of that was spent for the sole purpose of maximizing shareholder return.  Restricting patients’ access to needed care made UnitedHealth, Cigna, and a handful of other big insurers Wall Street darlings, and made lots of people lots of money while doing little to enhance care.

Much of that spending was to create the illusion that we Americans are happy with our healthcare system and don’t want politicians to get any bright ideas about changing it. Just three weeks before the tragic killing of United’s Brian Thompson, AHIP, the industry’s biggest PR and lobbying group, touted a recent “survey” that found “a strong majority are satisfied with their current employer-provided plans.” But I am doubtful. The survey was produced by a D.C. strategic communications firm founded by political operatives to manage corporate reputations and “shape perceptions.” AHIP is funded primarily by big for-profit middlemen whose fortunes depend on remaining in the good graces of those investors and a handful of Wall Street financial analysts. (UnitedHealth left AHIP in 2015, though the group’s current president is a former UnitedHealth executive.)

By Wendell Potter 

Dec. 11, 2024

Wendell Potter is former VP, of corporate communications, Cigna, and publisher of HEALTH CARE un-Covered.

Media coverage I’ve seen so far of this shocking corporate assassination has failed to explore the Wall Street connection adequately, even though Thompson was in New York for UnitedHealth’s annual investor day. I know how important investor days are to big corporations because I used to help plan Cigna’s. Top executives spend many hours preparing for this day because of who is invited: the institutional investors who own most of the company’s shares and those financial analysts who work at big investment banks and “cover” the industry, like high-paid journalists, for the investment community. Unsurprisingly, patients are not invited to these events and the word “patient” is rarely, if ever, mentioned, while “profit margins” and “shareholder value” are uttered frequently.

In my first book, “Deadly Spin,” I described the last investor day I helped plan. It took place at New York’s Mandarin Oriental Hotel, not far from where Brian Thompson was murdered, in early December 2007. As I recall, Cigna spent a quarter-million dollars of its customers’ money on that six-hour meeting, including $60,000 just to feed the 150 investors, analysts, and Cigna executives who had been invited. Another $50,000 covered the speaking fee of the author of a book extolling the supposed merits of high-deductible health plans, euphemistically marketed at the time as “consumer-driven” health plans (CDHPs), that Cigna and its competitors had begun embracing. The industry’s overall strategy was to move as many health plan enrollees as possible, and as soon as possible, into CDHPs because of their defining feature: a mandate that patients must spend hundreds and often thousands of dollars out of their own pockets before their coverage will kick in. 

The investors and analysts were fully on board with this so-called “consumerism” strategy. They knew that the more patients had to pay out of their own pockets for medically necessary care, the more money would be available to reward shareholders.

LESSONS FROM THE CRYPT

I would walk away from my job a few months later after a crisis of conscience triggered by the death of a 17-year-old girl just hours after Cigna caved to public pressure and agreed to cover the transplant that, if not for several days of delay, could have saved her life. That incident triggered justifiable public outrage days before that 2007 Cigna investor day, which cost approximately the same amount as the transplant the company initially denied Nataline Sarkisyan. Delays, it turns out, can be just as deadly as denials. And I knew that CDHPs, or whatever “innovation” Big Insurance came up with next, would create new barriers that patients would have to try to overcome to get the care they needed. I didn’t have it in me anymore to keep deceiving the public.

I would ultimately become an industry whistleblower and go on to testify before Congress when lawmakers were debating legislation that would become the Affordable Care Act. My overriding message every time I appeared before a congressional committee was to warn against what I saw as the biggest threat to Americans being able to get the care they need at a price they can afford: the relentless profit demands of Wall Street, its growing entanglement in the health care sector, and how it is adversely impacting patient care.

As I explained to lawmakers — now more than 15 years ago — for-profit insurers like UnitedHealth and Cigna must assure investors and financial analysts every three months that they know how to control their health plan enrollees’ use of medical goods and services so that plenty of their premium dollars can be diverted to profits. Congress would ultimately include language in the ACA to require health plans to spend at least 80% to 85% of premiums insurers take in on enrollees’ care, known as the medical loss ratio. But big insurers have figured out if they also become health care providers — by buying physician practices, clinics, and pharmacy benefit managers — they can meet that threshold by paying themselves and avoiding payment for their customers’ care.

An argument could be made that the medical loss ratio provision of the ACA has contributed to or even fueled the vertical integration of the big insurers, UnitedHealth especially. UnitedHealth is massively bigger and more profitable than it was on the day I first testified as a whistleblower, June 24, 2009, when it ranked 21st on the Fortune 500 list of U.S. companies. Its share price at the close of trading that day was $24.81.  Hundreds of acquisitions later, UnitedHealth is now the fourth largest U.S. company — just behind Walmart, Amazon, and Apple. At the end of trading on Monday of this week, the share price was $560.62. That’s an increase of more than 2,100% since June 24, 2009. By comparison, the Dow Jones average has increased 438%

In the years since then, UnitedHealth, Cigna, and a handful of other New York Stock Exchange corporations have cemented their roles as unelected gatekeepers to care, and Americans are now waking up as they never have before to the consequences of that. If their rage can be harnessed and channeled with clear policy proposals, that dike the industry built might just give way without more violence.

Don’t overlook Wall Street’s role in health insurance greed | STAT

WHAT YOU MUST KNOW ABOUT APEEL, A NEW FRUIT COATING

In November 2012, Apeel was founded with a $100k research grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to help reduce post-harvest food waste in developing countries that lacked refrigeration infrastructure. With this funding, Apeel’s founder James Rogers hired two researchers he knew from his Ph.D program and commenced working on the product that ultimately would become Apeel. While the product was originally focused on assisting farmers in Africa and Asia, it expanded to food preservation in the Western Hemisphere. Apeel has since been recognized as one of the first food waste “unicorn” companies (greater than $1B in valuation), having raised more than $300M in total funding to continue research and development and to scale globally.

The Gates Foundation supported this development in November 2012 with the vision of providing food to developing nations while it is transported to distant lands requiring extended storage for long trips via ships.

What you need to know about Apeel

It’s the coating that’s being sprayed on your fruits and vegetables that you may be unable to wash off completely…

This is popping up all over the place online – so many companies and influencers are talking about it so we decided to hop on and inform you about it too. 

What is Apeel, and Why is it Being Used?

According to Apeel’s website, the purpose of using Apeel on produce is to reduce food waste by slowing down spoilage. Apeel is a coating sprayed onto produce after being picked. They claim it’s made of purified mono and diglycerides derived from sustainably sourced, non-GMO plant oils, with citric acid from organic produce. Note that Apeel can only be used on organic produce in the US but not in the EU or UK. 

In simple terms, mono and diglycerides are broken-down fats, in this case, sourced from plants.

What foods is it on? How do I know if the foods I’m buying have it?

Apeel states that produce contains a “microscopic” amount, around 0.06 grams, which varies depending on the size of the produce. Labeling varies depending on the manufacturer and grocer. This means it could be on a sticker, on the packaging, or even on a sign in the store. Be on the lookout and ask an employee if you’re unsure. However, there have been reports of employees being unaware that their product has this coating.

In the USA, avocados, limes, and apples may be coated with Apeel. In Europe, it’s found on avocados, English cucumbers, lemons, limes, mandarin oranges, grapefruit, and mangos.

Can I wash it off?

I’m all for washing your produce thoroughly to remove excess pesticides and residues. Apeel states that while it’s good practice to wash your produce, it’s not necessary to wash off Apeel, given its safety. 

However, it fails to mention if Apeel can even be washed off, stating, “You can remove some of the Apeel protection with water and scrubbing.” The key word here is “some,” leaving the question of how much is coming off versus how much you’re ingesting.

If you’re concerned, peeling the skin off is a way to avoid the coating – although, as a Registered Dietitian, I encourage people to eat as much of the skin as possible since it’s rich in fiber.

How does it affect my health?

According to Apeel, their coating is completely safe: “The safety of mono- and diglycerides have a long history of safe consumption and are a commonly used food ingredient.”

While Apeel claims to be completely safe, non-toxic, and even tests for heavy metals, it’s important to note that according to Apeel’s GRAS (Generally Recognized as Safe) Notice by the FDA, states its edible coatings may have residues including ethyl acetate, heptane, palladium, arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury. However, Apeel can say their product is “safe” as the FDA concluded that the residues of these substances were below their required limits.

My Questions

What non-GMO plant oils are they using?

While Apeel doesn’t directly state the plant oils they are using, the generally recognized as safe (GRAS) application states that they are derived from grape seed. Grapeseed oils are very high in polyunsaturated fats (PUFAs) and Omega 6. While we all need omega-6 to survive and thrive, the ratio of omega 3 (anti-inflammatory) to omega 6 (pro-inflammatory) must be optimized to promote good health. 

The standard American diet consists of an abundance of omega 6 compared to omega 3, enabling a pro-inflammatory state in the body. If Apeel uses these oils even in the minimal amounts our produce is coated with, I would aim to limit these foods, especially if you have inflammatory conditions, as everything adds up and can trigger the body.

What chemicals and solvents are used in the extraction process?

Unfortunately, I couldn’t find this information, which I believe is key to understanding what’s in this product and how it may impact our health.

Final Thoughts

I’m always a bit skeptical when something new is added to our food. While the initial research presented is promising, the reality is that we need long-term studies, specifically on humans eating produce with Apeel, to know its impact on our health. 

When buying produce, I would still go organic when possible and, in general, give your produce a good wash- water is best, but you can also do a 1:1 water/white vinegar rinse to really get it squeaky clean.

OBESITY IS A MAJOR PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUE FOR AMERICANS.

Weight gain is a problem for Americans. It is attributed to overconsumption of fats and the use of fast foods in American diets. 

CHRONIC ILLNESS

The use of food additives may also contribute to chronic illness and inflammatory diseases.  

I’ll most likely be avoiding Apeel produce when I can. However, I will be sure to keep readers of Health Train Express up to date on its current research and news!

Isabel Smith Nutrition

PRICE TRANSPARENCY VS PRICE OPACITY

 The "emergency" argument against healthcare price transparency is a perfect example of using an emotionally vivid edge case to defend an inefficient status quo.

The vast majority of healthcare services are predictable and schedulable:

- Annual checkups
- Laboratory services
- Diagnostic tests
- Elective procedures
- Ongoing treatment plans
- Physical therapy
- Dental work
- Vision Care

Price opacity serves primarily to:

1. Maintain artificially high prices through information asymmetry.

2. Justify insurance companies as "necessary" intermediaries.

3. Prevent direct physician-patient price competition.

Think of other complex services we manage to price transparently:

- Legal services (hourly rates)
- Construction (detailed estimates)
- Auto repair (parts and labor)
- Higher education (published tuition)

The "but emergencies!" The argument is like saying we shouldn't have restaurant menus because someone might need emergency catering.

Price transparency would likely drive:

- More direct-pay arrangements
- Subscription/membership medical practices
- Cash price competition
- Insurance becoming truly insurance (catastrophic coverage) rather than a payment intermediary

Let’s make healthcare affordable and accessible for everyone, everywhere…

hashtag#healthcare