Vertical Integration saves money. And CVS and its competitors use that to line their pockets, not provide healthcare

I have several times referred to the concept of “vertical integration” in the health care/health insurance/pharmaceutical industry, most recently on March 28, 2026, Everything is becoming more unaffordable, but health care may lead this list!. These posts often reference the posts of former insurance executive-turned-whistleblower Wendell Potter on his substack “Health Care Un-Covered”, including “With CVS’s Vertical Empire Under Threat in Tennessee, the Company Threatens to Leave”, which discusses the fact that CVS, most widely known as large pharmacy chain, also owns the Pharmaceutical Benefit Manager (PBM) Caremark. PBMs are add-on middlemen that negotiate better rates for insurance companies with pharmacies. CVS owns pharmacies, a lot of them. This may seem like conflict of interest (COI), but that is apparently a quaintly outdated concept in this era of mega-corporations.

Actually, the PBM-pharmacy COI is only a part of the CVS megalopoly. They also own one of the nation’s largest health insurers, Aetna, so they have both ends and the middleman! And, to round it out, they own a large primary care provider group (Oak St. Health) and long-term care company (Signify Health) and urgent care provider (Minute Clinic). Just read the AI summary if you Google “Companies CVS owns”, but if you want it, the comprehensive list by the SEC is here. This is what vertical integration is; you buy from yourself, and sell to yourself, set the prices (usually in a way that minimizes tax liability), and make a lot of money. The structure is not hard to understand, but it maximizes the conflict of interest. (For a discussion of why this is conflict of interest and not “potential” conflict of interest, see this blog post from August 20 2010, The AAFP, Coca-Cola, and Ethics: Serving the public interest? . In brief, COI exists when a decider has interests in both parties, and a decision one way would help their other interest. The conflict exists whatever the decision is actually made. A judge hearing a case in which one party is a company in which they own a great deal of stock has a conflict of interest; it doesn’t require waiting to see how they rule.)

To be clear, CVS is far from the only major player in the “healthcare industry” (quotes on purpose, and emphasis on “industry”) that is vertically integrated. The largest health insurance company in the US, UnitedHealth, also owns a PBM, (OptumRx), a primary care group (Optum) and a whole host of other companies (SEC listing here). So does CIGNA (their PBM is ExpressScripts). So, there is competition within the “healthcare” sector; it is an oligopoly (few companies) not a complete monopoly. But oligopolies don’t really compete in the way classic capitalist theory would have it; rather, they tend to set prices and divide up the market so they all do well (although they would prefer the other companies to go out of business, the existence of a few tends to forestall any governmental intervention that might occur with a true monopoly).

Is vertical integration bad? A major argument in favor of it is that it can, and often does, increase efficiency. If you own everything, from insurer to care delivery system to pharmacy, and all the other players in between, you can minimize the obstruction from a piece that is owned by someone else. Things can move more smoothly. Costs can be reduced significantly. These are the arguments most commonly put forward, to the public, by vertically integrated corporations that control a huge market sector, oligopolies as well as monopolies.

It is also the argument put forward to stockholders, particularly large stockholders like private equity firms. Especially the “reduced costs” part. This is very attractive to stockholders. It could also be attractive to those ostensibly served by the “healthcare” industry, those people needing – healthcare. After all, they are heavily burdened by the cost of their healthcare, which constantly goes up. This includes the portion that they are responsible for in the form of premiums, deductibles, copayments and “cost sharing” (meaning insurance only pays a part of the bill and you’re on the hook for the rest). Another recent Potter piece, The Bill That Never Ends, summarizes the situation and addresses the fact that deductibles reset every year, so people are constantly behind the 8-ball and can never pay it off. It reminds me of the compound interest that keeps former students in debt for decades even though they may have paid off far more than the original loan! It is an example of how our laws are set up to benefit large businesses, not regular people.

Which, of course, brings us to the issue of efficiency, and lower costs. To what use is this efficiency, this lower cost, put? Cui bono? There is an argument that such efficiency could decrease the overall cost of health care to the nation, as well as to the individuals who require care, which has actually been promulgated for decades by academics and others. There are fewer of them these days, as it has been demonstrated repeatedly that such an idea is frightfully naïve. Yes, money is saved, but it is all used for greater salaries and bonuses for management and greater profits for shareholders. If it were being used to lower premiums, decrease deductibles, lower the cost of drugs, or increase the availability and affordability of health care, we would have seen it. We have not. Too bad.

A weak, but possibly useful, analogy is to a family. The adults (usually) generate the income, and certainly choose how to spend it. This can be mainly to provide food and housing, education for children, health care (to the extent that it is available) and other benefits for the family. Or it could be spent on relatively transient pleasure for the adults – alcohol, tobacco and other drugs, gambling, etc. Most of us feel that the first is better, a “good” thing, and the second is not good, is selfish, and even reprehensible. Apparently, such moral judgement is not applied to corporations, certainly not, in this case, those involved in “healthcare”.

I keep putting “healthcare” in quotes when applied to the industry. This is because it is not an industry that is at any significant level dedicated to providing healthcare to our people; when it does, this is a byproduct. It is an industry that is dedicated to extracting the most dollars possible from the rest of the economy and putting them in their own pockets. While this is, of course, the goal of most of our industries, it seems worse that “healthcare”, perhaps because of the veneer that come from ostensibly doing something good, seems to be particularly effective at it.

A single payer health insurance system only addresses coverage. A national health service, such as in Britain, is a more comprehensive manifestation of vertical integration. It doesn’t always work well, mostly because it is starved of funds as a political act to demonstrate that the public sector does not run efficiently or effectively, thus an argument to privatize it, which has to some degree been done in the UK. And, like almost all efforts to privatize formerly public services, the cost goes way up, the service does not improve or gets worse, and the money that could have been used to benefit the people is lining the pockets of ganevem. This does not seem like a good use of benefits of efficiency and decreased cost arising from vertical integration to me.

Maybe we can do something about it! Imagine if the phrase “healthcare” industry didn’t have to be in quotes!

 

For more (or maybe just more terse):

“The health insurance company gets a cut, the pharmacy benefit manager gets a cut, the drug manufacturer gets a cut, and the patient…gets screwed!” Rep Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, interviewing CVSHealth CEO David Joyner at a congressional hearing.

Also “Federal rules require the insurer to spend a certain percent on care. But, when you own the care, when the insurer owns the pharmacy, owns the PBM, owns the drug manufacturer, you also own the health care cost.”

The whole clip is not that long and makes the point about vertical integration very clear, including 1000% markups on some drugs! Thank you, AOC!  If you have time to do nothing else, watch this video!

https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/media/press-releases/icymi-ocasio-cortez-calls-out-cvs-healths-corporate-strategy-monopolize 

Everything is becoming more unaffordable, but health care may lead this list!

A Mar 23, 2026 NY Times article, “When voters talk about ‘affordability’, many point to health care”, emphasizes how big a deal this is to the American people – and for those who consider this finer point -- American voters. Lots of things have been becoming increasingly unaffordable, so why should health care be different? Housing is ridiculous, and if you live in one of the larger cities in this country, it may well be out of reach. The Times had another piece the same day, “How a Family of 3 Lives on $500,000 on the Upper West Side”, and apparently it is not that easy. In most of America, a family of 3 making a half-million dollars a year, would be rich, but in New York City (and it is similar or worse in San Francisco, Boston, LA, San Diego, DC, etc.) you’re living in a one-bedroom apartment (near Central Park, though) and trying to save up for something bigger, made more difficult by the $4200/month you pay for childcare for your one-year-old, more than the $3900 yoy pay in rent. Doing the math, those two expenses come to less than $100K a year, so they should still have money left, but I guess other things cost a lot as well.

Food is another big issue; even more than housing it is a necessity (there are, sadly, too many unhoused people but no one can go too long without food) and it is a real issue. I had a friend who was from Colombia, and decades ago he observed that he could understand how people could be homeless in the US, but not hungry. Unlike in his country, where housing was cheap and food expensive, you could get a dozen eggs for $1. Well, recently in many places a dozen eggs were above $6. Whatever you think about eating meat, it has become a rare luxury for many families. And gas? Thanks to the US/Israeli attacks on Iran (I take a deep breath and don’t offer more comments) and Iran’s response, gas prices have shot up. I see articles about it being up 20-30%, but where I live in Tucson, AZ it was $2.79 before the attacks and in the same stations is now $4.45 or more (that is about a 60% increase!) The administration has also cut back incentives for non-gasoline cars as they want to push oil and gas – whoops! Since public transportation is so lousy in many places, people depend on cars to get around and get to work when they have a job.

So, with those 3 things – housing, food, and gas (4 if you add childcare) costing so much, it is pretty salient that the people in the Times article single out health care as a main concern about affordability. And, as I have often written, its unaffordability has been increasing and increasing and increasing. Health insurance premiums are up, and for those who receive it through their employers the percent that the employee must contribute is also up. Deductibles are up. Co-payments are up. And even when you pay all that – and frequently people cannot – you may well not get the care you need because insurance companies have ratcheted up their delay-and-deny game, hoping you will give up and not appeal when they deny you coverage for or require your doctor to get “prior authorization” for something you really need, keeping you away with algorithms that stymie your doctors. Or, maybe they completely deny payment because you went to the “wrong” hospital, one that is not in your (really, their) network. Maybe because you were, well, really sick!

Or you could have Medicaid and find that that, as bad as it was, is being cut. Or even more, is cutting you out entirely! Or you may have had health insurance that you could almost afford as an individual through the health insurance exchanges set up by ACA (Obamacare), but now find that subsidies have been cut and there is no way you can continue to afford it. Or maybe you live in a state that never expanded Medicaid (which was the way the ACA sought to cover those too “rich” for Medicaid but too poor to afford insurance on an exchange), and so you have been without access to care for years. Or, maybe are already dead.

Or you could have “traded in” your Medicare, a single-payer program for senior and some disabled people, for “Medicare Advantage”, an insurance company product that sounded great at the start but puts you right back in an HMO, where you have limited providers and the insurance company can deny you coverage. Or, just to be sure that we are not letting anyone out of being screwed, you can have opted for traditional Medicare and find out that the new WiSER program is allowing companies to use AI-based algorithms to deny care in 6 states (so far)!

Wendell Potter’s substack “Health Care Un-Covered” published With CVS’s Vertical Empire Under Threat in Tennessee, the Company Threatens to Leave on the same day (Mar 23) helps explain the reason. While the headline is somewhat optimistic (that the state of Tennessee is trying to reign them in) the real importance is the description of that vertical integration of CVS’ empire, in which they control not just local pharmacies and the health insurance giant Aetna, but also the pharmacy benefit manager (PBM), Caremark, which is now its largest cash cow! It’s a great deal for them, as they pay themselves, and have little competition from small agencies. They do have competition from UnitedHealth, which owns the PBM OptumRx and the provider group Optum, and CIGNA, which owns ExpressScripts, (which Potter explains Just Got Sued for Racketeering), so it is not an monopoly, just an oligopoly with a small number of players. And not one of those players is at all interested in your health. They are entirely focused on their bottom lines, as I discussed on Feb 26, 2026 in The problem with the US healthcare 'system': THE INSATIABLE PURSUIT OF EVER MORE MONEY BY CORPORATIONS AND WALL ST.  

The Times article emphasizes the political conflict between Republicans, who have been responsible for all the cuts and are trying to make it worse, acting exactly as if their goal is to hurt and kill lower-income people, and the Democrats who are trying (unsuccessfully so far) to block cuts to ACA and Medicaid, and perhaps place some limits on Medicare Advantage. But most “mainstream” (read “corporate”) Democrats are severely limiting their suggestions to, basically, returning to Obama-era goals. A significant minority of Democrats in both the House and Senate have signed on to cosponsor the Improved and Expanded Medicare for All bills that would move the US into the mainstream of healthcare in all wealthy countries by completely covering everyone for everything (see Yes, Rep. Van Drew, there IS a solution!,  Dec 30, 2025)! If that happened, the US would no longer be a standout for bad, paying 2-3 times what other countries pay and having worse health outcomes – and, as described above, moving in the wrong direction.

I don’t think that most Democrats are opposed to your receiving quality healthcare at a reasonable price (not sure about Republicans) but they get lots of money from these insurers, PBMs, and health systems. They need to hear from you!

The problem with the US healthcare 'system': THE INSATIABLE PURSUIT OF EVER MORE MONEY BY CORPORATIONS AND WALL ST.

That the US health system is (to quote the opening of an important book*) “broken”, is obvious to almost everyone. It’s a mess. Even calling a “system” is probably incorrect. It costs a tremendous amount of money, generally 2-4x per capita what any other wealthy country spends, and generates far worse public health outcomes (even before the wackadoodle RFKJr became Secretary of HHS) such as longevity, disability-adjusted-life-expectancy (DALE), infant mortality, cancer survival, and almost all other measures. It also is very difficult to access, just getting to see a doctor, as well as financially. This situation has long been true for the poor and much of the working class. It is getting worse as low-income people lose access to Medicaid because of cuts to ACA subsidies or because they live in a state that never expanded Medicaid, and for rural people who are both, on average, older (and thus more likely to have health problems) and poorer. Over time it has increasingly become something that affects working class people, as insurance companies raise their rates, employers become stingier with paying premiums, and, very importantly, as the power of unions has been dramatically eroded by a society concerned only with corporations making the most possible money. It is critical to remember that the health insurance benefits employed workers gained resulted from the struggles of unions, never from the generosity of corporations.

The days of “Cadillac health plans” for unionized workers are long gone, and they are finding themselves in the same pool of too many people seeking too unavailable health care at too unaffordable costs. The new Trump administration plan for the ACA will make things much worse; it may offer lower-cost plans in terms of premiums but with enormous deductibles (‘New A.C.A. Plans Could Increase Family Deductibles to $31,000’, NY Times, Feb 26, 2026). So if you get sick and need care, you’re really screwed, and if you don’t you’re paying insurance premiums for nothing!

And now even those in privileged economic positions, who have money and sometimes even personal access because they are doctors, are finding themselves struggling to access care. People can’t find doctors, especially primary care doctors like family physicians and general internists who can manage their health and the input from various specialists. When they can find them, it is hard to get an appointment. It is very difficult to talk to them, or get a message to them, or speak to anyone who works for them who has any clinical knowledge or understanding. Some people say “I have a good doctor, they respond to my calls, or I can communicate on a health portal,” but these grow fewer. I know physicians who have real difficulties! They need supplies for their insulin pumps, but the insurance companies require notes from their doctors, and it is almost impossible to reach them. I know health care professionals who have heart problems requiring them to wear machines recording their heart rhythm over time, who must wait in lines stretching out the door to see their cardiologists. This is bad, not because they are better educated, wealthier, or health care professionals, but because it is bad for everyone. These people, at least, be able to afford to get a “concierge” doctor who they pay out of pocket, but clearly this is not a solution for most folks. 

We are in the grips of a perfect storm, with insurance companies raising their rates and finding reasons to deny care, a shortage of doctors in many areas, both geographic and by specialty, especially including primary care, with doctors having such speed-up of their work that they scarcely have time to see their patients not to mention respond to calls or notes. We have federal and state governments cutting back public benefits, including not only Medicaid but also Medicare and the VA. Doctors no longer work for themselves where they can make decisions about how to run their practice, and balance work and income, but for giant hospital “healthcare” systems and private equity investors interested only in profit.

Well, you know, maybe “perfect storm” is the wrong analogy. That phrase implies that the bad situation you find yourself in is the result of several unrelated events that come together coincidentally at the same time. This is not the case in the health care crisis. While a lot of things seem to be happening together, they are all manifestations of one single thing:

THE INSATIABLE PURSUIT OF EVER MORE MONEY BY CORPORATIONS AND WALL ST.

That's it. That is 100% of the problem. A lot of effort is spent trying to transfer blame between blameworthy players, with insurance companies saying providers are too greedy, providers saying insurers don’t pay enough. And everyone blames the pharmaceutical industry and even components of that industry – drug manufacturers, giant retail pharmacies, and “PBMs”, the middlemen between drug companies and insurers – blaming each other. But this “it’s not me, it’s them” is all a load of crap. Yes, sometimes one part of the “healthcare” industry is doing better financially than another, sometimes one corporate behemoth puts another out of business, but what is never a major consideration – and I put forward it should be the only consideration – is what improves the health of the American people, as individuals and as a whole. You, the “patient”, the sick person who needs care, is the one player in this whole thing whose interests are not getting the consideration they deserve – which should be ALL of it.

The growing trend, which is the proof of all of this, is the “vertical integration” of the components of the system. This means that the same company is the insurance company, the provider, the drug supplier. It feeds itself sucking out your money at every turn while denying you the care that you need. Several recent posts on the “Health Care Un-covered” substack detail aspects of this, including ‘The Economic Exploitation of Independent Physicians by Insurers’, and recently ‘2025: Big Insurance’s $1.7 Trillion Year’ which shows that while they ARE making these outrageous amounts (from YOUR pocket, whether directly in premiums, co-pays, and deductibles or premiums paid by your employer in lieu of higher wages) the bosses THEY answer to, the sharks on Wall St., are harassing them to do more, charge more, deny more care, because it isn’t enough; they aren’t making enough  profit! They need more!

I said at the beginning of this piece that “almost everyone” realizes that our healthcare system is a mess, and I think this is true. Certainly, those profiting from it, all those insurance companies and health systems and private equity companies and drug companies, know it. They love it. They’re making out like bandits, one might be tempted to say, if only bandits could begin to compete with them in cupidity, heartlessness, and immorality.

The truly infuriating thing is that our governments are in the practice of enabling them, of enhancing their power, of increasing their profits (see, for example, the gargantuan efforts to move US seniors out of traditional Medicare, an efficient and cost-effective single-payer plan to Medicare Advantage, which puts them back at the mercy of insurance companies; see for example Medicare re-enrollment: Time to consider being dissatisfied with a new plan!, Oct 25, 2025). Most legislators and their health pundits who are not the out-and-out-on-the-take corporate enablers that characterize the Republican party are the somewhat-less-but-really-still-on-the-take corporate enablers of the Democratic party!

We regularly hear from even somewhat progressive (not to mention the right-wing) think tanks and academics and legislators that it would be impossible to change the system to truly benefit the health of the American people, and not the pockets of big corporations, even though it has been done in every other wealthy (and many less wealthy) countries in the world. The key change here is to take the profit (or most of the profit, or the possibility of generating ever more profit) out of the health system. The problem is simply NOT that people use “too much” health care and cost too much money; the problem IS simply that insurers and big health systems and Wall St. and drug companies MAKE too much money and are taking the money we pay for health care out of health care!

The only people who are going to speak for the health care needs and interests of the vast majority American people are those people themselves. Demand of your politicians that they commit to single-payer improved and expanded Medicare for All, demand that they pursue policies that actually get more primary care doctors out in practice by decreasing the payment prejudice for subspecialists and banning completely the corporate practice of medicine.

And if they don’t, vote them out!

 

*Joshua Freeman, Health, Medicine, and Justice: Designing a fair and equitable healthcare system, Copernicus, 2015.

Does AI communicate better than real doctors? If so, why is that?

The New York Times recently ran an article titled “Empathetic, Available, Cheap: When A.I. Offers What Doctors Don’t”, which should be very concerning to the medical profession as it emphasizes three things that they are often not. But probably won’t concern the real decision makers in healthcare – the corporate owners, “health systems”, insurance companies, and private equity. After all, their concern is solely making money, and they are doing just fine, thank you.

The article indicates that AI seems to be responsive to and nice to people, and seems to show respect, concern, and empathy; “seems to” is important, because these are computer programs, not people, and they don’t have any feelings. Nonetheless, people feel better when they are addressed with respect, concern, and compassion. Even if it is programmed and not real. The truth is that doctors and other actual people do not always do so, for a variety of reasons. And they don’t even have the chance to if the patient cannot contact them, which is so common as to be routine these days

For many years, I told medical students that, while they had worked very hard to master the language of medicine, learning idioms, jargon, eponyms, and acronyms so they could fit in and impress their seniors, residents and attending physicians, regular people would not understand them if they spoke like that. They had to be able to translate that back into their first language, English (or whatever their vernacular was). This is an important skill, for without it people (“patients”) won’t understand what you are saying, and won’t know what is going on with them. And that is important. It takes effort, and it takes intentionality – you must want the person to understand what you are saying. That’s is true even if what you are telling them is bad news, something that will make them upset or unhappy.

I thought about this after a recent conversation with a couple of current medical students. I made the points above, about the importance of communicating in a way people can understand, and observed that, in fact, often people did not understand. This was based on, among other things, the number of times I had to try to explain to my patients, as a family doctor, what their specialist was saying. And the number of times I had to try to figure out, as a family member or friend, what my family member or friend’s doctor had been telling them that led them come away with what seemed to be an incorrect understanding of the situation. I have even said “If you assume that no one ever understands anything their doctor tells them, you will be correct a distressing percent of the time”.

The students agreed, but when they gave examples from their experience, I became more concerned.

A surgeon I worked with was unable to get all of the cancer out, but when telling the patient used all kinds of technical and unfamiliar terms, like ‘clean margins’. It was like they were trying to not lie, but to obfuscate what they were saying by talking in words and phrases that were technically true but not meaningful to the patient. I was left, after the surgeon had gone, to try to respond to the patient who asked me ‘What did they just say?’”

Obviously, this should not be the job of the medical student, but of the surgeon. And while it is tempting to say, “Well, they’re surgeons; communication is not their strength” (and while, as a family doctor, I like to think we are better at it), most or all doctors are guilty of this sometimes. (It is also true that it is even harder when you have to acknowledge that the bad news may, in fact, be the result of something you did wrong, but this is a separate area.)

I have recently had experience with close family members who had complications during procedures. One, during an endoscopy, had their blood oxygen level drop and had to have a breathing treatment afterwards, receiving a new diagnosis of asthma. This was upsetting, but at least they were told everything. Another, in a much more concerning episode, had major lung surgery. After the surgery, they had terrible, persistent pain which was not adequately treated. Several months later, visiting another doctor (not the surgeon), they were told that their oxygen level had also dropped severely, as a result of having a pneumothorax, a serious, potentially dangerous condition where air gets into the chest cavity and can partially collapse the lung. More relevant, it can be terribly painful. This might explain why the nurses, following their pain-management algorithms, did not give the patient sufficient pain medication. It is still not clear if they were told their patient had a pneumothorax, but it is definitely clear that the patient, my family member, was not told. They should, of course, have been.

There are a lot of potential problems with AI providing people medical information, some of which are discussed in theTimes article. For one thing, it could be wrong. It doesn’t really know you, and part of the reason that you are consulting the medical AI (or real clinician) is that you don’t actually know either exactly what is wrong with you, or how to put it in terms that will get you the correct answer to your question even if the AI is capable of getting the correct answer. Of course, sadly, the same can be true of real doctors, especially when you don’t actually speak to them; the article leads with the story of a person who wanted advice on how to increase the protein in their diet, and received generic – and unhelpful – answers from the physician on line (presumably a “patient portal”). For all we know, they could have been AI produced.

It would be much better – some of us would say essential – for doctors to communicate fully and honestly with their patients, using language that they can understand, even when the news is not good. And for them to be there, being, well, patient, while their patient tries to formulate questions, and answer them. But there are a lot of reasons that they don’t, or can’t.

A part of it may be that they are poor communicators, or uninterested in having their patients understand everything, especially if it could be embarrassing or take a lot of time. But AI doesn’t have that problem. It is not paid by the patient, and it has no set number of people it has to see in a given amount of time the way that real clinicians do. These actual clinicians often work in hamster-wheel conditions (time spent not only seeing patients but having to do electronic charting aimed at maximizing profit via upcoding as much as possible) which are not the fault of the doctor, but of their employers who are interested in “throughput” to make as much money as possible. Saliently, procedures are relatively well reimbursed but spending the time necessary to talk to a person to be sure that they completely understand what is going on is not. Of course, this is also part of the reason that there are fewer students entering primary care and more are entering better-paid procedure-based specialties.

Having a health care system that valued, and paid for, communication would be good. It would have to start with a system designed to maximize the health of our people, not corporate profit. Yes, there would still be some doctors who communicated poorly, and even made poor medical decisions, but those could be dealt with as individuals, rather than having them intrinsically encouraged by the system.

Doctors could and should do better, and maybe there is a place for AI. But there is no place for profit in healthcare.