Relentless Health Value

In this episode, host Stacey Richter engages with Betsy Seals, CEO and co-founder of Rebellis Group, to analyze the future of key Medicare Advantage policies amidst a changing political landscape. They delve into four critical areas: the Medicare Advantage Stars Program and potential changes due to recent lawsuits and the new administration's stance on quality measures; risk adjustment and government oversight, including the focus on recouping improper payments; the use of artificial intelligence and what appropriate oversight for AI in prior authorization should look like; and agent and broker oversight, including increased scrutiny over marketing practices. Betsy emphasizes the importance for Medicare Advantage plans to prioritize patient value, maintain compliance, and proactively utilize data to navigate these evolving policies.

WHAT YOU'LL LEARN

✅ Whether the Star Ratings program will survive in its current form under the new administration, and how ongoing lawsuits against CMS policies could reshape it

✅ Why it's becoming harder for Medicare Advantage plans to survive, let alone thrive, under the current combination of political and regulatory pressure

✅ How AI is directly impacting beneficiary lives already — particularly in prior authorization — and what oversight should look like to keep that impact net positive

✅ What's currently happening with override payments, and why this is one of the more consequential but least understood levers in Medicare Advantage policy right now

✅ Why it's increasingly important for compliance teams to become more technologically savvy, given how much of the current oversight burden runs through data and AI systems

WHY THIS MATTERS

Medicare Advantage plans are navigating four simultaneous pressure points — Star Ratings uncertainty, risk adjustment oversight, AI governance, and agent/broker scrutiny — against the backdrop of a genuinely uncertain political environment. Betsy's core message is that plans who prioritize patient value and lean into compliance and data now will be far better positioned than those waiting to see how the policy landscape settles.

=== LINKS ===

🔗 Show Notes with all mentioned links: Episode Page

✉️ Enjoy this podcast? Subscribe to the free weekly newsletter

🫙 Support the podcast with a small donation to the Tip Jar

🎤 Listen on Apple Podcasts

🎤 Listen on Spotify

📺 Subscribe to our YouTube channel

=== CONNECT WITH THE RHV TEAM ===

✭ LinkedIn ✭ Bluesky ✭ Threads ✭ X

00:00 Introduction

05:09 Will the Star Ratings program stay in this new administration?

08:08 How will the lawsuits against CMS policies play out with this new administration?

10:24 Why is it hard for Medicare Advantage plans to survive, let alone thrive?

16:22 How does AI directly impact beneficiary lives?

21:38 What's going on now with the override payments?

27:08 How is non-collaboration going to impact Medicare beneficiaries moving forward?

31:45 Why is it important to become more technologically savvy in compliance?

In this encore episode, Stacey Richter explores how the demands of shareholders influence the actions of publicly traded health insurance companies with guest Wendell Potter. Drawing from Milton Friedman's assertion that a business's primary responsibility is to its shareholders, the discussion examines the implications of this philosophy in the healthcare sector — including concerns about fraud allegations among major insurers and the lack of open competition due to market consolidation. They delve into the concept of the "medical loss ratio," a key metric for investors, and how it pressures insurers to prioritize profits, often at the expense of patient care. Wendell Potter, a former health insurance executive turned advocate for healthcare reform, provides insider insights into these dynamics, discussing the challenges insurers face in controlling costs, the impact of rising premiums, and the broader consequences for patients and the healthcare system.

WHAT YOU'LL LEARN

✅ What the medical loss ratio actually measures, and why it's become the metric investors watch most closely — often at direct odds with what's good for patient care

✅ Why insurers have been raising premiums for a long time, and why, in Potter's framing, this reflects a short-term game rather than a sustainable strategy

✅ Why these companies aren't doing a very good job of controlling costs — because, structurally, they don't have the incentive to

✅ How payers attempt to control utilization, and why that effort so often amounts to death by a thousand cuts rather than a coherent strategy

✅ Why independent practice physicians and community pharmacists are both endangered by the same underlying financialization dynamic, and what that says about who actually runs the healthcare system

WHY THIS MATTERS

When a health insurance company answers primarily to shareholders, the medical loss ratio becomes the metric that matters most — and every dollar spent on patient care is, from that vantage point, a dollar not returned to investors. Wendell Potter's insider perspective is that this isn't a bug in the system, it's the system working as designed for its actual audience, which raises the uncomfortable question of who healthcare companies are really run for.

MENTIONED IN THIS EPISODE

EP366 with Kevin Schulman, MD: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Other Apps

=== LINKS ===

🔗 Show Notes with all mentioned links: Episode Page

✉️ Enjoy this podcast? Subscribe to the free weekly newsletter

🫙 Support the podcast with a small donation to the Tip Jar

🎤 Listen on Apple Podcasts

🎤 Listen on Spotify

📺 Subscribe to our YouTube channel

=== CONNECT WITH THE RHV TEAM ===

✭ LinkedIn ✭ Bluesky ✭ Threads ✭ X

00:00 Introduction.

08:31 What is the medical loss metric?

11:33 "The reality is, insurers have been jacking up premiums … for a long time."

12:48 "It's a short-term game."

15:39 "You're seeing that these companies are not doing a very good job … of controlling costs because they don't have the incentive."

22:45 How do payers ensure that they're controlling utilization?

25:53 "It's death by a thousand cuts."

31:51 "Just like independent practice physicians are endangered, so are community pharmacists."

33:17 Who runs our healthcare system?

This episode is with Dr. Scott Conard, founder of Converging Health, who you might remember from an earlier episode (EP391). Right now, Dr. Conard is doing a bunch of work with Mike Adams from 7-Eleven, helping their plan members. A lot of this work is centered on a few pretty striking but very common insights that many plan sponsors will find in their own data: it turns out about 70%, give or take, of people who wind up costing the plan whatever the high-cost threshold is in any given plan year didn't fall out of the sky unexpectedly — they were actually high-risk but low-cost in prior years. So the trick is to find these individuals and help them not fall into the high-risk, high-cost part of the graph before it happens.

WHAT YOU'LL LEARN

✅ Why roughly 70% of members who become high-cost claimants in any given plan year were already identifiable as high-risk, low-cost members in prior years — and why that's the actual opportunity for population health management

✅ How to think about population health data correctly, and why the common approach to interpreting that data leads plan sponsors astray on where healthcare spend is actually headed

✅ What needs to happen with population health data once it's collected — identification alone doesn't change outcomes without a concrete intervention pathway

✅ A real, successful case study of community-run primary care in Rhode Island — where a community pays for primary care for its members the same way it pays for the fire department and police department, with Michael Fine, MD, part of that effort

✅ Why avoiding prevention in primary care only harms you later — the cost of skipping it now shows up, with interest, in the high-cost claimant numbers a few years down the road

WHY THIS MATTERS

The plan sponsors who get ahead of high-cost claimants aren't the ones with the best crisis response — they're the ones who correctly read their own data to find high-risk, low-cost members before the cost curve bends upward. Dr. Conard's Rhode Island case study is proof that community-funded primary care, treated as basic infrastructure rather than a discretionary benefit, is one of the more durable ways to intervene before that curve turns.

MENTIONED IN THIS EPISODE

EP449 with Marty Makary, MD, MPH: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Other Apps

=== LINKS ===

🔗 Show Notes with all mentioned links and articles: Episode Page

✉️ Enjoy this podcast? Subscribe to the free weekly newsletter

🫙 Support the podcast with a small donation to the Tip Jar

🎤 Listen on Apple Podcasts

🎤 Listen on Spotify

📺 Subscribe to our YouTube channel

=== CONNECT WITH THE RHV TEAM ===

✭ LinkedIn ✭ Bluesky ✭ Threads ✭ X

00:00 Introduction.

07:10 How do we think about data wrongly, and how does that affect our healthcare spend in regard to population health?

09:43 What needs to be done with population health data once it's collected.

14:48 Community in Rhode Island doing effective proactive care.

16:44 A real, successful case study.

24:08 How do we define high-cost patients?

24:14 What do we know about high-cost patients in regard to population health spend?

29:02 Why avoiding prevention in primary care only harms yourself in the future.

In this inbetweenisode, Stacey Richter dives into the complexities of benefit design in American healthcare. Drawing on insights from recent episodes with Bill Sarraille (EP459) and an upcoming episode with Scott Conard, MD, Richter explores the impact of cost containment measures and the moral hazard of insurance, emphasizing the importance of creating balanced and efficient benefit plans that align with plan values and avoid unintended consequences. She discusses the challenges and implications of high-deductible health plans and copay maximizers/accumulators, urging plan sponsors to strive for pareto optimality and practical solutions. Going black and white, or over-indexing to prevent outlier situations, is probably not going to end well — and not seeking a middle way can easily result in a solution that is possibly worse than the problem.

WHAT YOU'LL LEARN

✅ What the moral hazard of insurance actually is, and why it's a real, structural phenomenon rather than an abstraction — not just a talking point

✅ Why moral hazard so often goes unmitigated in insurance design, even when plan sponsors are aware of it

✅ Why patients not being able to distinguish high-value from low-value care compounds every other benefit design problem downstream

✅ How to conceptualize a solve when going fully black-and-white (rigid rules) or fully permissive both fail — and why the gray middle is where workable benefit design actually lives

✅ Why plan sponsors should be striving for Pareto optimality rather than a perfect solution, and what the "theory of second best" means for practical benefit design

WHY THIS MATTERS

Benefit design keeps failing in the same way: sponsors either go fully rigid to prevent abuse or fully permissive to avoid friction, and both extremes create worse outcomes than a deliberately imperfect middle path. Richter's argument is that accepting the theory of second best — optimizing within real constraints rather than chasing an unattainable ideal — is the more honest and more effective starting point for plan design.

MENTIONED IN THIS EPISODE

EP358 with Wayne Jenkins, MD: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Other Apps

EP459 with Bill Sarraille: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Other Apps

=== LINKS ===

🔗 Show Notes with all mentioned links: Episode Page

✉️ Enjoy this podcast? Subscribe to the free weekly newsletter

🫙 Support the podcast with a small donation to the Tip Jar

🎤 Follow on Apple Podcasts

🎤 Follow on Spotify

📺 Subscribe to our YouTube channel

=== CONNECT WITH THE RHV TEAM ===

✭ LinkedIn ✭ Threads ✭ X ✭ Bluesky

00:00 Introduction to the Rabbit Hole

04:05 Where did Stacey's rabbit hole spiral start?

05:40 What is the moral hazard of insurance?

12:49 Why isn't moral hazard mitigated in insurance?

20:51 "How do we conceptualize a solve?"

22:24 Why should we be striving for Pareto optimality?

25:20 What is the theory of second best?

This episode with Chris Crawford, CEO of RxSaveCard, is not about the when, why, or how of GLP-1s for weight loss or best-practice prescribing. It's very specifically about the pickle plan sponsors get themselves into often enough where, if they impose formulary restrictions to limit the volume of meds they're paying for, unit prices go up — a real dynamic for GLP-1s and a critical one, given how the costs associated with GLP-1s for weight loss contribute to significant increases in pharmacy trend. Chris Crawford and Stacey Richter discuss the tradeoff plan sponsors face: lower your volume and raise the unit price, or vice versa. Chris also introduces a potential solution leveraging the growing cash marketplace, where employers can bypass traditional PBM contracts to achieve cost savings. This episode is sponsored by RxSaveCard.

WHAT YOU'LL LEARN

✅ The two pieces going on with GLP-1 PBM prices and rebates for employers — and why they pull against each other in a way most plan sponsors don't see coming

✅ Whether the cash price for these name-brand drugs is currently less than the rebated PBM price — and why that answer surprises most plan sponsors

✅ Why the rebate for GLP-1s disappears the moment employers try to put restrictions on who can access these drugs — the core perverse incentive at the heart of this episode

✅ Where RxSaveCard comes into play as a mechanism for employers to access the cash marketplace directly, bypassing the rebate trap entirely

✅ Why "we exist to save people money" is Chris Crawford's simplest articulation of the model, and what it looks like in practice for employers and employees

WHY THIS MATTERS

There's an unfortunate tradeoff, as it stands right now, for many plan sponsors managing GLP-1 coverage: lower your volume and raise the unit price, or vice versa. That tradeoff isn't inevitable — it's a byproduct of how rebate-driven PBM contracts are structured. Tools like RxSaveCard exist because there's real money to be saved once employers step outside that structure and access the cash marketplace directly, and this is a really impactful, not-frequently-delved-into perverse incentive that anyone on or about the pharmacy supply chain needs to understand.

MENTIONED IN THIS EPISODE

EP456 with Brian Reid: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Other Apps

EP356 with Ge Bai, PhD, CPA: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Other Apps

EP439 with Luke Slindee, PharmD: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Other Apps

=== LINKS ===

🔗 Show Notes with all mentioned links: Episode Page

✉️ Enjoy this podcast? Subscribe to the free weekly newsletter

🫙 Support the podcast with a small donation to the Tip Jar

🎤 Listen on Apple Podcasts

🎤 Listen on Spotify

📺 Subscribe to our YouTube channel

=== CONNECT WITH THE RHV TEAM ===

✭ LinkedIn ✭ Threads ✭ X ✭ Bluesky

00:00 Introduction.

07:57 What are the two pieces going on with GLP-1 PBM prices and rebates for employers?

10:00 Is the cash price for these name brand drugs currently less than the rebated PBM price?

11:49 Why does the rebate for GLP-1s disappear if employers try to put restrictions on who can receive access to these drugs?

15:07 Where does RxSaveCard come in to play here?

19:55 "We exist to save people money."

How Disruptors Can Scale to 99% of Americans: A Theory of Change for Healthcare

Advanced primary care disruptors — Iora Health, Oak Street, ChenMed, One Medical — proved better outcomes at lower cost are possible. But even combined, they serve a low single-digit percentage of Americans. Dr. Rushika Fernandopulle, founder of Iora Health (sold to One Medical, then Amazon), argues the next challenge is getting the status quo — the hospitals and carriers caring for the other 99% — to adopt what the disruptors proved. In this episode, Stacey Richter speaks with Dr. Rushika Fernandopulle, MD, founder of Iora Health, about his five-prong theory of change for transforming American healthcare at scale — and why it has to run through the existing delivery system to matter.

WHAT YOU'LL LEARN

✅ Why innovating the clinical model without first changing the payment model is a waste of time — and why providers should walk into carrier negotiations with their own contract, not the carrier's

✅ How the 60% threshold works: once 60% of a practice's patients are in value-based payment arrangements, it becomes financially viable to treat everyone that way — and why moving fast to that threshold beats a slow, incremental transition

✅ Why running fee-for-service and value-based care from the same clinical setting is an "unholy mess" — and how to build a separate care model with people who actually want to work that way

✅ How Iora Health reduced hospitalizations by 40% using team-based care — health coaches, integrated behavioral health, social workers, and embedded population health management — and why this model can't coexist with a fee-for-service mindset

✅ Why health systems have two and only two options as Optum and private equity groups move into local markets: get into risk and capture the surplus themselves, or watch someone else do it and inherit a shrinking pie of uninsured patients

✅ Why long-term payer-provider partnerships — not annual re-bidding — are the only mechanism that can sustain this kind of transformation, and what a 10-year Humana contract taught Dr. Fernandopulle about collective action

WHY THIS MATTERS

Disruptors like Iora showed it can be done — great care, great health outcomes, affordable cost. But the math is unforgiving: if you want to impact the care of 99% of Americans, you have to go through the status quo cohort of hospitals and carriers. As Dr. Fernandopulle put it, the current path is unsustainable — close to $5 trillion a year spent with embarrassing outcomes on life expectancy and maternal mortality. The only options are to design the transition well, in a controlled way, or wait for things to collapse.

MENTIONED IN THIS EPISODE

EP453 with Claire Brockbank: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Other Apps

EP455 with Beau Raymond, MD: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Other Apps

EP391 with Scott Conard, MD: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Other Apps

EP364 with David Muhlestein, PhD, JD: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Other Apps

EP404 with Suhas Gondi, MD, MBA: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Other Apps

=== LINKS ===

🔗 Show Notes with all mentioned links: Episode Page

✉️ Enjoy this podcast? Subscribe to the free weekly newsletter

🫙 Support the podcast with a small donation to the Tip Jar

🎤 Listen on Apple Podcasts

🎤 Listen on Spotify

📺 Subscribe to our YouTube channel

=== CONNECT WITH THE RHV TEAM ===

✭ LinkedIn ✭ Threads ✭ X ✭ Bluesky

00:00 Introduction.

06:39 How Dr. Rushika Fernandopulle found himself where he is now.

08:06 Dr. Fernandopulle's conversation with Kenny Cole, MD.

10:33 Why is it important to have new payment models?

16:19 Why it makes sense to change as quickly as possible.

19:55 How to be proactive and not be reactive and achieve value-based reimbursement for good care.

21:41 Why team-based care is so important for change.

23:37 Why is it important to have a different set of technology tools?

25:24 Why changing the culture is important.

27:01 "Getting doctors to do things they don't like is a waste of time."

33:22 "Healthcare is local."

35:43 Study by Zack Cooper, PhD.

39:04 Why long-term partnerships are the only way to make things better.

In this episode, host Stacey Richter speaks with healthcare attorney Bill Sarraille about co-pay maximizers and accumulators — mechanisms designed to extract maximum co-pay support dollars from pharmaceutical companies. Maximizers spread pharma co-pay support evenly throughout the year, ensuring plan sponsors benefit while, in theory, patients face minimal costs. Accumulators, however, design their plan to deplete pharma dollar support quickly, surprising patients with significant out-of-pocket expenses mid-year when they visit the pharmacy. These programs usually exclude pharma assistance dollars from deductibles, potentially causing financial hardship — because when pharma is paying your co-pay, those payments don't count against your deductible. Sarraille discusses the financial implications for patients, plan sponsors, and PBMs, emphasizing the legal and ethical issues and potential patient harm, and provides five key pieces of advice for plan sponsors.

WHAT YOU'LL LEARN

✅ The mechanical difference between maximizers and accumulators — and why accumulators in particular create mid-year surprise expenses that maximizers are designed to avoid

✅ What the justification for maximizers actually is, and why that justification sits at odds with the basic purpose of insurance

✅ Where the issue of "fairness" lands within cost containment — and why reasonable people land in very different places on these programs

✅ What real legal issues these co-pay maximizer and accumulator programs present, and what potential litigation Bill sees coming in the near future

✅ How these programs create perverse incentives across the system, and what advice Bill has for plan sponsors trying to navigate them responsibly

WHY THIS MATTERS

Co-pay maximizers and accumulators both exist to capture the maximum co-pay assistance pharma is willing to provide — the difference is simply whether patients feel that mid-year, all at once, or spread evenly with minimal disruption. Bill Sarraille's pointed observation — "if you're covered by the ACA, I think this is unlawful" — signals that the legal exposure here is real, not theoretical, and plan sponsors who aren't already thinking about it are behind.

MENTIONED IN THIS EPISODE

EP450 with Marilyn Bartlett, CPA, CGMA, CMA, CFM: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Other Apps

=== LINKS ===

🔗 Show Notes with all mentioned links: Episode Page

✉️ Enjoy this podcast? Subscribe to the free weekly newsletter

🫙 Support the podcast with a small donation to the Tip Jar

=== CONNECT WITH THE RHV TEAM ===

✭ LinkedIn ✭ Threads ✭ X ✭ Bluesky

00:00 Introduction.

09:31 What should plan sponsors be aware of right now?

14:01 What is the justification for maximizers, and why is this at odds with the purpose of insurance?

18:05 Where does the issue of "fairness" land within cost containment?

20:00 Brian Reid's LinkedIn post on insurance company access challenges.

21:30 What are the real legal issues presented by some of these co-pay maximizers and co-pay accumulator programs?

27:06 How are these programs creating perverse incentives?

32:16 "If you're covered by the ACA, I think this is unlawful."

32:57 What advice does Bill have in regard to these programs?

33:49 What potential litigations does Bill see coming in the near future in regard to these co-pay maximizers and co-pay accumulator programs?

In this inbetweenisode, titled "End of Year Wrap-Up and My Personal Charter Encore," Stacey Richter extends heartfelt thanks to listeners and healthcare workers for their dedication. She reflects on the challenges of maintaining personal integrity in a profit-driven healthcare system and introduces her personal charter — a manifesto focused on ensuring net positive outcomes for patients that acknowledges achieving transformational change in healthcare requires a collective effort. Stacey discusses the complexities of balancing ethical decisions, financial constraints, and the broader impact on patient care, urging others to reflect on their own guiding principles. Her manifesto: "If the thing results in a net positive for patients, then I will do it. The timeframe is short-term or medium-term. And the assumption is that it will take a village and I am not alone in my efforts to transform healthcare or do right by patients."

WHAT YOU'LL LEARN

✅ Why healthcare's financialization has made it, in Stacey's words, a zero-sum game — and why that framing matters for anyone trying to make ethical decisions inside it

✅ Why self-interest is such a powerful and often underacknowledged force in healthcare decision-making, at every level of the system

✅ The three parts of Stacey's Personal Charter: net positive for patients, a short-to-medium timeframe, and the assumption that meaningful change takes a village, not a single actor

✅ How Stacey calculates the "net positive" of an impact, and what upsides and downsides she actually weighs when making that calculation

✅ Why incremental change and disruptive change are not mutually exclusive — and why finger-pointing between the two camps is actively killing healthcare innovation

WHY THIS MATTERS

"It's basically up to us as individuals to do the right thing." Stacey's Personal Charter isn't a policy prescription — it's a personal operating framework for staying oriented toward patients inside a system whose incentives don't reliably point that way. The reminder that it will take a village is deliberate: no single actor, however well-intentioned, changes healthcare alone.

=== LINKS ===

🔗 Show Notes with all mentioned links: Episode Page

✉️ Enjoy this podcast? Subscribe to the free weekly newsletter

🫙 Support the podcast with a small donation to the Tip Jar

=== CONNECT WITH THE RHV TEAM ===

✭ LinkedIn ✭ Threads ✭ X ✭ Bluesky

00:00 Introduction.

06:52 "It's a zero-sum game."

07:02 Is the amount of profit fair?

07:13 What is an inescapable fact of the healthcare industry?

07:30 What does the financialization of healthcare mean?

07:55 Why does the self-interest in healthcare matter?

09:54 "It's basically up to us as individuals to do the right thing."

13:39 What is the first part of Stacey's personal charter?

13:54 How does Stacey calculate the net positive of an impact?

14:17 What are two major upsides/downsides that Stacey contemplates?

17:08 Why are incremental change and disruptive change not mutually exclusive?

21:16 "I always try to keep in mind that it will take a village."

22:55 Why finger pointing is killing innovation in healthcare.

Are you on the board of directors of a company? Or a shareholder of a publicly traded company? Or a CEO, CFO, or in-house counsel who reports to a board of directors or shareholders? This encore episode is for you — it's about how the healthcare industry has become financialized at the same time that providing health benefits has become the second-biggest line item after payroll for most companies (a topic touched on in the recent encore with Mark Cuban, EP418, as well as the show with Cora Opsahl, EP452, and Claire Brockbank, EP453, from 32BJ). In this encore episode, Stacey Richter interviews Andreas Mang from Blackstone about the financialization of health benefits for boards of directors and C-suites of self-insured employers. They discuss the unseen financial layers in healthcare benefits and how companies can save significantly while improving employee satisfaction and health.

WHAT YOU'LL LEARN

✅ Why Andreas starts every conversation with the question "How's your healthcare company?" — and why every self-insured employer should think of itself as a small healthcare company

✅ Why it's structurally unnatural for companies to be providing health insurance in the first place, and what that means for how the benefit should actually be managed

✅ What can be achieved when there's real alignment between employers and insurers — and the concrete things a company can do to reduce spend by 10%

✅ Why self-insurance automatically saves companies 5% to 9% — and why "the funding isn't a healthcare thing, it's a CFO thing"

✅ Why CFO engagement in the benefits plan throughout the year matters, why a reliable and trustworthy broker is vital, and how employers can actually get a flat-fee model from their broker

WHY THIS MATTERS

Health benefits have quietly become one of the largest, least-scrutinized financial line items most companies carry — and treating that line item like "a healthcare thing" rather than a CFO thing is exactly why the financialization Andreas describes goes unnoticed. When was the last time your company RFP'd its health plan? For most boards and C-suites, the honest answer is a wake-up call.

=== LINKS ===

🔗 Show Notes with all mentioned links: Episode Page

✉️ Enjoy this podcast? Subscribe to the free weekly newsletter

🫙 Support the podcast with a small donation to the Tip Jar

=== CONNECT WITH THE RHV TEAM ===

✭ LinkedIn ✭ Threads ✭ X ✭ Bluesky

00:00 Introduction.

04:55 Why Andreas starts every conversation with the question, "How's your healthcare company?"

07:38 Why is it important, as a self-insured employer, to treat your business as a small healthcare company?

09:16 Why is it unnatural for companies to be providing health insurance?

10:47 What can be achieved when there is alignment between employers and insurers?

12:41 What things can a company do to reduce spend by 10%?

14:14 Why is it better to have CFO engagement in the benefits plan throughout the year?

16:25 Why does self-insurance save 5% to 9% for companies automatically?

18:14 "The funding isn't a healthcare thing; it's a CFO thing."

18:27 Why is it vital to have a reliable, trustworthy broker?

25:12 When is the last time your company has RFP'd their health plan?

27:39 Why does changing a health plan feel scary but is necessary?

28:31 What is a dependent eligibility audit?

31:20 Why are employers better together?

34:34 How do employers truly get a flat-fee model with brokers?

In this episode, host Stacey Richter speaks with Dr. Komal Bajaj about innovative strategies for addressing staffing shortages in the healthcare sector. Dr. Bajaj is an ob-gyn who serves as chief quality officer for a couple of hospitals in the Bronx, New York, part of the municipal health system, and now also serves as medical director of sustainability for NYC Health + Hospitals. They explore the importance of cultural alignment within organizations, emphasizing trust and shared values to retain staff. Dr. Bajaj shares surprising findings from surveys indicating that healthcare workers are motivated by the goal of providing high-quality, planet-friendly care. The discussion highlights the interconnectedness of environmental sustainability and healthcare quality, presenting tangible ways to engage and empower healthcare workers while addressing both local community health and broader environmental concerns.

WHAT YOU'LL LEARN

✅ How to actually quantify the staffing shortage problem, and why looking at the root cause changes the entire approach to solving it

✅ Why trust is one of the core problems underlying staffing shortages — and what a Deloitte survey found about what keeps healthcare workers in place

✅ The strongest correlations that influence a healthcare worker's desire to stay — and what gives them the most pause about staying long-term

✅ Why sustainable, climate-friendly healthcare is turning out to be a real driving factor in staffing decisions, per the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Health Sector climate pledge and a Commonwealth Fund survey on what health systems can do

✅ How to meet healthcare workers' actual desires where they are, rather than where organizations assume they are

WHY THIS MATTERS

"Healthcare workers have choice." That simple fact reframes the staffing shortage conversation: retention isn't primarily a compensation problem, it's a trust and alignment problem, and increasingly a values problem tied to sustainability and mission. Organizations that treat climate-friendly, high-quality care as a genuine organizational value — not a side initiative — are finding it's also a genuine staffing advantage.

=== LINKS ===

🔗 Show Notes with all mentioned links: Episode Page

✉️ Enjoy this podcast? Subscribe to the free weekly newsletter

🫙 Support the podcast with a small donation to the Tip Jar

=== CONNECT WITH THE RHV TEAM ===

✭ LinkedIn ✭ Threads ✭ X ✭ Bluesky

00:00 Introduction.

08:20 How do we quantify the issue of staffing shortages?

11:18 Why do we need to look at the root cause of the shortages?

11:51 Deloitte survey on staffing shortages.

11:54 Why is trust one of the core problems when it comes to staffing shortages?

13:59 "Healthcare workers have choice."

15:34 What are the strongest correlations that influence healthcare workers' desire to stay?

18:17 What things give healthcare workers the most pause?

19:36 The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Health Sector climate pledge.

20:20 The Commonwealth Fund survey on what health systems can do to address climate change.

22:29 What do we do about sustainable, climate-friendly healthcare being a driving factor in staffing?

27:28 How do you meet the desires of healthcare workers where they're at?