Leaked executive order draft lays out Trump’s plan to squash state AI policy
What’s happening: A leaked draft executive order, “Eliminating State Law Obstruction of National AI Policy,” would direct the administration to challenge state AI laws in court, create an AI litigation task force at DOJ, and have Commerce review state AI statutes and deem states with AI laws ineligible for remaining BEAD broadband funds. Agencies would also be instructed to assess whether discretionary grants can be conditioned on states banning AI laws, with California and Colorado explicitly called out.
Why it matters: This would move AI regulation into a predominantly federal domain, potentially preempting stricter state-level AI guardrails that many health systems have been building around. For hospitals and health systems, it raises strategic and reputational questions about AI deployment, DEI-related model governance, and the risk that digital infrastructure funding could be tied to a state’s AI policy posture.
Trump plans more steps to cut healthcare costs in coming weeks, senior White House official says
What’s happening: The White House says President Trump will travel domestically before year-end to promote his economic agenda and highlight efforts to improve affordability, with additional healthcare cost measures expected “in the coming days and weeks.” Messaging will emphasize tax cuts, limits on taxes for overtime pay, and recent actions to lower prescription drug prices as part of a broader inflation-fighting narrative.
Why it matters: This signals continued federal focus on visible, consumer-facing levers of affordability, including drug pricing and benefit design. For health systems, it suggests more regulatory or statutory movement on prices and out-of-pocket costs, creating both operational uncertainty and an opportunity to align system communications with a pro-affordability narrative.
With weeks left to prepare for TEAM, hospital readiness lags
What’s happening: CMS’ mandatory Transforming Episode Accountability Model (TEAM) begins in 2026, holding more than 700 hospitals accountable for 30-day bundled-payment episodes for five common surgical procedures. While CMS has provided target prices, baseline data and educational resources, many hospitals are behind on care redesign, post-acute network development and cost analyses, even as they juggle Medicaid cuts, 340B pressure, site-neutral proposals, workforce shortages and supply chain costs. The first year is upside-only, but downside risk starts thereafter, with projections that hospitals could lose an average of $500 per episode without effective redesign.
Why it matters: TEAM is a significant escalation in Medicare’s shift to value and episode-based payment. Systems that invest now in clinical pathways, post-acute partnerships and physician alignment can capture savings and market differentiation, while laggards risk future CMS paybacks layered on already thin margins, particularly in high-cost service lines.
NIH funding cuts have impacted more than 74,000 people enrolled in trials: Report
What’s happening: New research in JAMA Internal Medicine finds that Trump administration cuts to NIH funding from late February through August disrupted 383 of 11,008 NIH-funded clinical trials, affecting more than 74,000 participants. The terminated trials disproportionately involved infectious disease, prevention in cancer, heart and brain disease, and behavioral interventions. While an accompanying editorial calls the cancellations an ethical breach toward participants, HHS defends the moves as part of a “strategic realignment” away from “ideological agendas.”
Why it matters: For research-active systems, abrupt federal funding cuts threaten trial pipelines in high-priority disease areas and damage trust with patients and investigators. Hospitals will need stronger diversification of research funding, more explicit communication around trial continuity and ethics, and clear messaging that separates scientific priorities from shifting political agendas.
Bipartisan health subsidy bill adds income caps, anti-fraud measures
What’s happening: A bipartisan House group released legislation to extend enhanced Affordable Care Act premium tax credits for two years while phasing out support above 600 percent of the federal poverty level (about $200,000 for a family of four). The bill would lengthen the plan year 2026 open enrollment period until May 15, 2026, add anti-fraud measures such as cross-checking with the Social Security Death Master File, and crack down on broker abuses and “ghost beneficiaries.” A similar bipartisan bill using Medicare Advantage overpayment limits as an offset is also in play.
Why it matters: This proposal offers a potential off-ramp from the looming subsidy cliff that could otherwise drive millions off exchange coverage. For health systems, a two-year extension with integrity guardrails would help stabilize individual-market volumes and uncompensated care, though higher-income enrollees may see reduced support and require targeted outreach to maintain coverage.
Looming affordability crisis set to hit Americans with health insurance through work
What’s happening: Premiums for employer-sponsored insurance, which covers about 165 million people, are expected to rise 6 to 7 percent as workers re-enroll for 2026, following a 6 percent increase this year that brought family coverage close to $27,000 annually with average employee contributions of about $6,850. Employers anticipate a 6.7 percent jump in health costs in 2026, outpacing both inflation and wage growth, driven by hospital and drug cost growth, GLP-1 utilization, consolidation and tariff-related uncertainty. While Congress is fixated on ACA subsidies, employer coalitions are pushing for price transparency and anti-consolidation measures.
Why it matters: Even “well-insured” patients will feel intensifying affordability pressure through higher premiums, deductibles and cost sharing, which will translate into delayed care, bad debt and tougher negotiations with employer purchasers. Systems that cannot convincingly demonstrate value and cost discipline risk being squeezed by employers seeking cheaper networks or alternative care models.
How Are Patients Using Healthcare Chatbots? Study Finds Some ‘Eye-Openers’
What’s happening: A study of UCHealth’s Livi chatbot found that patients widely use it for 24/7 administrative tasks (scheduling, results, contact information) but also for sensitive topics like mental health, billing and finding new providers, often because they perceive the chatbot as more private and less judgmental. Only about one in three users correctly identified Livi as fully automated. Older patients were more comfortable and less concerned about privacy, in part because they associated the tool with health system protections, while respondents generally saw diagnoses as better suited for human clinicians.
Why it matters: Peer systems are already seeing chatbots become the first touchpoint for high-stakes, emotionally charged conversations. That creates a competitive imperative to ensure your own digital front door is transparent, trustworthy and clearly framed as a complement—not a replacement—for clinicians. Missteps on privacy, bias or over-reliance on automation could erode trust and drive patients toward competitors that present a more patient-centric digital experience.
Hospitals and clinics are shutting down due to Trump’s healthcare cuts. Here’s where
What’s happening: Following passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which is projected to push an estimated 10 million people off coverage by tightening Medicaid eligibility, raising ACA costs and defunding some abortion-providing family planning clinics, provider groups in at least eight states have closed hospitals, obstetric wards and clinics or laid off staff. More than 300 rural hospitals are considered at risk, with nearly 100 in counties that have no other obstetric care options, leaving many pregnant patients facing long travel times and limited alternatives.
Why it matters: Federal cuts are accelerating service line closures and market exits in vulnerable communities, particularly rural and obstetric care. Surviving systems face a dual challenge: increased demand from displaced patients with weaker payer mixes and heightened scrutiny from communities that often blame “the hospital” rather than federal policy, underscoring the need for proactive access and advocacy strategies.