Healthcare reform: Five trends to watch as the Affordable Care Act turns five

Health Research Institute
March 2015
At a glance
In its first five years, the
Affordable Care Act (ACA)
has had a profound,
and likely irreversible,
impact on the business of
healthcare. Industry leaders
must rethink strategies
to remain relevant in a
post-ACA world.
Healthcare reform:
Five trends to watch
as the Affordable Care
Act turns five

Table of contents
The heart of the matter 2
Still the subject of intense debate, the Affordable Care
Act of 2010 has already left an indelible mark on the
$2.9 trillion health sector. By energizing five fundamental
shifts over the past five years, the law has given rise to a
New Health Economy predicated on value.
Trend 1: Risk shift 4
Raising the stakes for all healthcare players.
Trend 2: Primary care 7
Back to basics.
Trend 3: New entrants 9
Innovators in the New Health Economy.
Trend 4: Health insurance 12
From wholesale to retail.
Trend 5: States 14
Reform’s pivotal stage.
The next five years 17
Paramount to remaining relevant in a post-ACA system
is the willingness to innovate: to develop strategies that
meet the demands of new healthcare consumers, to pursue
alternative business models, to adopt new technologies
and to take on new roles and activities.
Acknowledgments 20

2 Five trends to watch as the Affordable Care Act turns five | PwC Health Research Institute
Not since the Telecommunications Act of 1996,
has a piece of legislation sparked such significant
changes in a leading sector of the economy.
The heart of the matter
Still the subject of intense debate, the Affordable Care
Act of 2010 has already left an indelible mark on the
$2.9 trillion health sector. By energizing five fundamental
shifts over the past five years, the law has given rise to a
New Health Economy predicated on value.
Signed into law on March 23, 2010,
the Affordable Care Act (ACA)
continues to face legal challenges,
implementation delays and the
re-emergence of cost as a pressing
concern. Yet even with those caveats,
the law in its first five years has forged
a path for major shifts in an industry
that represents about 18% of GDP. Not
since the Telecommunications Act of
1996, has a piece of legislation sparked
such significant changes in a leading
sector of the economy.
Though the groundwork was laid
in advance of the law’s enactment,
health industry business models
and imperatives will likely never be
the same post-ACA. Five trends—
both directly and indirectly
influenced by the ACA—have ignited
this transformation.
1. Risk shift: Raising the stakes for
all healthcare players.
2. Primary care: Back to basics.
3. New entrants: Innovators in the
New Health Economy.
4. Health insurance: From
wholesale to retail.
5. States: Reform’s pivotal stage.
With a major US Supreme Court case
looming and shifts in the balance
of political power, there is still the
possibility that the ACA could be
further revised or defunded. And
new taxes and fees add to existing
downward pressure on revenues.
ACA
Despite the challenges, these key
trends—accentuated and accelerated
by the law—continue to push forward,
building opportunities and risks
within the New Health Economy.1
Industry leaders must recognize that
traditional ways of doing business
are rapidly shifting toward a post-
ACA system. While many healthcare
players are walking the tightrope
between old and new, eventually the
“new” will become the “norm.”
As such, each sector must be forward
thinking and flexible. Paramount to
remaining relevant is the willingness
to innovate: to develop strategies that
meet the demands of new healthcare
consumers, to pursue alternative
business models, to adopt new
technologies and to take on new roles
and activities.

Risk shift: Raising the stakes for
all healthcare players.
The ACA added force to new payment models that reward
outcomes and penalize poor performance such as high
rates of readmission and hospital-acquired conditions.
By championing models such as shared savings, bundles
and pay for performance, the ACA has accelerated a shift
in risk away from traditional insurers and onto providers,
pharmaceutical companies and even consumers.
Primary care:
Back to basics.
Experimentation in new payment
models and expansion of insurance
coverage are making primary care
once again the critical touch point.
New entrants: Innovators in
the New Health Economy.
Over 90 new companies
created since 2010.
New entrants are rushing into the market
to meet the demand for lower-cost,
consumer-oriented care options in the post-
ACA era. From data analytics to mobile
technology, new businesses—as well as
giants from other industries—are inspiring
innovation and redefining value based on
consumer preferences.
Health insurance:
From wholesale to retail.
Rapid enrollment in the ACA’s public
exchanges has demonstrated the potential
of retail-style health insurance and spawned
renewed interest in private exchanges.
In doing more business directly with
consumers, insurers are changing their
fundamental business model.
States:
Reform’s pivotal stage.
States have emerged as key players in
the reconfigured healthcare landscape.
From the design of exchanges to
the decision over whether to expand
Medicaid, states have notable discretion
in implementing the law.
Five trends igniting healthcare transformation
ACA
5
2
3
4
3Five trends to watch as the Affordable Care Act turns five | PwC Health Research Institute
1

Risk shift:
Raising the stakes for all healthcare players
The health industry has been
spreading and shifting risk—including
financial, enterprise, operational
and market share—to not only
include traditional insurers, but also
hospitals, physicians, pharmaceutical
companies and consumers. The results
of this shift vary in scope, uptake and
even location.
While the business strategy varies
between sectors, the overarching goal
remains the same: learning to compete
under an evolving set of rules, limited
resources, increased transparency and
a focus on value rather than volume.
The ACA fueled this trend. For
providers, the law took steps to change
how Medicare pays for care by offering
financial incentives and penalties that
encourage better care coordination,
higher-quality outcomes and less
fragmentation. Under the ACA, the
combined penalties of Medicare’s
three quality programs—Hospital-
Acquired Condition Reduction,
Hospital Readmissions Reduction and
Hospital Value-Based Purchasing—
will put over 5% of Medicare inpatient
payments at-risk.2
In addition, the administration
recently unveiled a framework that
would put as much as half of what it
spends on Medicare into alternative
payment models by 2018.3
The move
quickens the long-anticipated shift
from fee-for-service payment that
rewards the number of procedures
performed to paying for the value or
patient outcomes of the care provided.
Cuts to Medicare reimbursement and a
focus on value have put cost pressures
on hospital systems, challenging them
to do more with less. In response,
they are aggressively targeting cost
structures, scrutinizing operations
for reduction opportunities, and
developing ways to lower costs and
improve efficiency.
The extra force of ACA-championed
payment models reverberates
across the industry. Pharmaceutical
companies have begun to see their
influence over product selection and
marketing wane.
In 2014, PwC’s Health Research
Institute (HRI) surveyed senior leaders
from a cross-section of pharmaceutical
and life sciences companies. The
results show a growing willingness
by pharmaceutical executives to cede
more authority to the US Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) to judge
new medications based on clinical and
economic effectiveness.4
The industry’s recognition that the
path forward hinges on being able
to demonstrate value has spread.
Hospitals, for instance, are more price
sensitive, and some have publicly
chosen less expensive drugs over
pricier products as a way to tamp
down total cost.
Trend
1
The industry’s recognition that the path forward
hinges on being able to demonstrate value has spread.

The risk shift also changes consumer
attitudes. Many health plans sold on
insurance exchanges are tethered to a
high deductible, requiring consumers
to spend more of their own money
for medical care. Less insulated
from healthcare costs, Americans
want a healthcare market that can
compete like a more traditional,
retail-oriented system.
Pharmaceutical companies forge
a business-to-business model.
It’s not enough for drugmakers
to simply satisfy the FDA as their
head regulator. Now, forces, such
as the creation of Accountable Care
Organizations (ACOs) and capped
payments, mean pharmaceutical
executives must respond to cost
pressures by health plans and
providers with risk-based demand.
This will require teasing out provider
definitions of value and demonstrating
the impact of outcomes, beyond
FDA approval requirements.
Outcome evidence creation itself is a
pharmaceutical industry challenge.
The ACA-created Patient-Centered
Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI)
has had limited influence to date and is
prohibited from considering economic
dimensions in its evaluations.
As a result, manufacturers are
beginning to engage health systems
in new ways, seeking their insights
into product development and
outcomes research. Just this year,
MD Anderson and AstraZeneca
announced a collaborative, multiyear
research effort that will inform the
development and utility of existing
and future cancer therapies.5
In
the absence of innovative outcome
evidence, undifferentiated products
may receive scrutiny from purchasers,
which could lead to harsh coverage
decisions for products that increase
cost with no appreciable gain in
clinical performance.
Outlook: As providers take on
more risk and continue to grow
through consolidation, they
should become more aware of the
value and effectiveness of certain
pharmaceuticals. The planned
shift in Medicare payment models
will accelerate a change in how
pharmaceutical companies develop,
price, market and then distribute
new products. This becomes a major
challenge to consider as healthcare
providers currently have little
awareness of drug costs.
Physicians and hospitals partner
for better care coordination.
The Medicare Shared Savings
Program and other pilot programs
that limit payments further encourage
physicians and hospitals to partner
in the post-ACA world. Ascension
Health and Trinity Health—two
major national systems—teamed with
Partners HealthCare and Advocate
Health Care, as well as insurer Aetna
and others, to build new payment
models.6
Other examples abound,
as the law fuels the trend toward
consolidation and partnerships.
Insurers
Physicians
Pharma/Devices
Hospitals
Consumers
$
Risk is spreading to not
only include traditional
insurers, but also
hospitals, physicians,
pharmaceutical
companies and
consumers.

Outlook: The risk-versus-reward
calculus created by the ACA has
pushed hospitals and health systems
outside their comfort zone, to where
innovation becomes survival.
Watch these businesses take on riskier
strategies with deep cost cuts and an
increasingly large share of revenue
in value-based contracts. Some
providers are starting to take it one
step further: effectively becoming
insurers themselves. Such moves are
largely rooted in the ACA’s expectation
that health systems must manage
patient care across a variety of medical
settings, including doctors’ offices,
hospital outpatient departments, retail
clinics and even the patient’s home.
North Shore-Long Island Jewish
Health System in New York has
already seized the opportunity,
receiving approval to offer health
benefits in 2014.7
And two Boston-
based systems, Tufts Medical Center
and Vanguard Health Systems (now
Tenet Healthcare), received the go-
ahead to sell coverage through the
Massachusetts exchange.8
Insurers experiment with
payment models.
Private insurers tested shared savings
programs long before Congress tackled
health reform, but the ACA provides
teeth. The reason: allowing Medicare
and Medicaid to pilot new ways to
tie payment to quality improvement
encourages commercial insurers to do
the same.
Outlook: Insurers face the most
immediate upheaval under the ACA,
which restricts the types of plans
they can sell, creates a competitive
environment that puts the spotlight
on price and increases industry
oversight. But the tradeoff—more
paying customers—has proven a boon
to insurers.
Exchange enrollment is expected
to level-off at about 22 million,
while Medicaid enrollment will
reach 14 million by 2025 with many
enrolled in private managed care
organizations.9
This represents
tremendous growth potential
for insurers.
Nevertheless, as risk and rewards are
passed on to providers, insurers will
still need to provide unique services to
survive. This will include investing in
value-based delivery systems—much
like UnitedHealth Group is doing with
Optum and Aetna with Accountable
Care Solutions. In addition, leveraging
brand and distribution to align
consumer incentives and reduce the
employer healthcare burden will
become a differentiator.
Consumers as purchasers.
Over 85% of enrollees in the ACA’s
health insurance exchanges selected
silver or bronze plans in 2014
reflecting an increase in the popularity
of high-deductible insurance options.10
This coupled with a rise in co-
insurance, employer defined-
contribution payments and health
savings accounts means that
Americans who are paying more
out-of-pocket must become better
purchasers of medical services. And,
under the ACA, insurance companies
and providers must help them in doing
so, making it clear what consumers
will pay and then get for their money.
Competition among a variety of health
plans—all required to cover specific
services—encourages consumer-
friendly marketing. The result is a
health industry that more closely
resembles a retail or service business.
Outlook: As consumers spend more
of their own money, they become
choosy shoppers and are finding
alternatives outside the traditional
delivery system. Retail clinics,
urgent care centers and even some
outpatient departments—all of which
typically have more flexible hours,
more convenient locations and clearer
pricing—have begun siphoning away
business from traditional doctor
offices and hospitals.
To compete, traditional providers,
often with the help of technology,
must find ways to give consumers what
they want: convenience, alternative
settings and remote access to care.
For the pharmaceutical industry, this
market of consumers—many of whom
will struggle to afford expensive
therapies—could hamper industry
innovation, especially in the branded
specialty drug category.

payment to keep physicians engaged
with Medicare and Medicaid and
providing incentives to sway budding
doctors to practice primary care.
The ACA infused federally qualified
health centers, which provide
primary care to underserved areas,
with an additional $11 billion for
the construction of new sites and
expansion of existing ones.11
It also
created the Center for Medicare
and Medicaid Innovation which,
since 2011, has given out more than
$2 billion of its $10 billion budget to
fuel exploration of new ways to deliver
and pay for quality care, including
primary care specifically.12
The law also created a new lexicon
for doctors. Concepts such as ACOs,
bundled payments and population
health—ideas that work well on paper
if not fully yet in practice—dominate
the discussion among industry
executives. In addition, greater use
of telehealth and extenders—such
as nurse practitioners and physician
assistants—help to meet the growing
demand for care as the number of
newly insured continues to rise.
Accountable care becomes
more tangible.
ACA-incentivized payment models
mean physicians now practice in both
the old fee-for-service business model
and in a value-driven environment
in which care teams are accountable
for patient outcomes. New risk-based
payment models allow physicians to
share in a percentage of the savings
generated by more streamlined care.
Already, 424 physician practices
If the ACA is a balance between
expanding insurance coverage and
encouraging non-traditional ways to
pay for and deliver medical services,
then primary care is its fulcrum.
From treating the millions of newly
insured Americans to testing novel
ways to manage and streamline care,
physicians broadly—and primary care
clinicians specifically—are integral to
virtually every initiative written into
the law.
Primary care teams—including
physician “extenders”—with their
ability to deliver routine medical
care while steering sicker patients to
specialists, have long been seen as the
best value across the US health system.
The ACA recognized this, requiring
that health plans cover primary and
preventive care as essential health
benefits, dedicating billions more in
Primary care:
Back to basics
“Three years ago Accountable Care Organizations
were like fables, often discussed but did not really
exist. Now these entities are taking shape, and it
appears clear that they will serve an important
role in the healthcare marketplace into the
foreseeable future.”
—Donald (Trey) Cole, III, M.D., Chief of Family Medicine, Austin
Regional Clinic in Texas
Trend
2

participate in the Medicare Shared
Savings Program, which serves some
7.8 million seniors. Created under
the ACA, the program has generated
more than $417 million in savings.13
Under the recently introduced “Next
Generation” accountable care model,
hospital and physician groups could
have nearly 100% of their Medicare
payment in at-risk contracts.14
Outlook: While some practices
have made modest financial gains
under risk-based payment, few have
seen revenues on par with fee-for-
service, underscoring the need for
greater efficiency.
Still, Medicare and other major
purchasers, such as private insurers
and large businesses, are increasingly
putting stock in accountable care
arrangements, as demonstrated by the
federal government’s move to tie half
of providers’ Medicare reimbursement
to alternative payment models
by 2018.15
The challenge for primary care now
is to strike the right balance between
old and new, easing the learning curve
associated with the inevitable switch
to a value-based system without
leaving money on the table in a still
predominantly fee-for-service world.
Telehealth gets a boost.
The ACA took small but important
steps to erase some of the policy issues
that have hindered widespread use
of telehealth services. But the law’s
focus on care delivery outside of the
traditional Medicare fee-for-service
creates one of the best opportunities
for widespread adoption. The ACO and
bundled payment structures create
incentives for providers to tamp down
the cost of care, encouraging primary
care clinicians to virtually treat
patients through video conferencing or
simple email responses.
Outlook: Medicare acknowledged
the growing popularity of telehealth
in 2014 when it expanded payments
for patient wellness programs,
longer-term outpatient visits and a
number of mental health services.
It’s a start. Medicare likely will need
to expand payments to cover more
routine care performed remotely.
State licensure agreements, which
restrict physicians in one state from
virtual visits with patients in another
state, will loosen to further speed
adoption of telehealth services. Other
care delivery alternatives—namely,
physician extenders—are also being
explored as a way to keep costs down
and increase access.
The ACA dedicates more than $31 billion to boost primary care.
Community Health Center Fund $11 billion
$11 billion over a 5-year period for the operation, expansion and construction of federally qualified
health centers, which provide primary care to underserved areas.16
Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (Innovation Center) $10 billion
$10 billion over a 10-year period to fuel exploration of new ways to deliver and pay for quality care,
including primary care specifically.17
Medicaid “pay bump” $5.6 billion
$5.6 billion spent to increase in Medicaid reimbursement for primary care services from
2013 through June 2014.18
Medicare bonus payments for primary care $3.5 billion
About $3.5 billion will be spent between 2011 and 2016 on a 10% Medicare bonus to
primary care clinicians.19
National Health Service Corps $1.5 billion
$1.5 billion to incentivize careers in primary care in underserved communities.20

New Entrants:
Innovators in the New Health Economy
The Telecommunications Act of
1996 spawned intense competition
as new investments in telecom
topped $1 trillion, pitting well-
established giants like AT&T against
newcomers such as Global Crossing
and McLeodUSA.21
A similar trend
has emerged two decades later with
the ACA, which has set the stage
for phenomenal growth from new
entrants such as Jiff, Oscar Health,
Aledade and Vital Connect. The ACA—
by bringing millions more paying
customers into the market, promoting
transparency, loosening technology
regulations and driving changes in
how care is delivered and paid for—
opens the gates for savvy investors
and start-up firms to enter the rapidly
expanding $2.9 trillion industry.
Over 90 new companies have been
created since 2010, according to HRI
analysis. Some of these newcomers—
such as Picwell and Omada Health—
were conceived in direct response to
opportunities and needs borne by the
ACA. For Omada, the ACA’s funding
of disease prevention gave weight
to its approach of tackling diabetes,
cardiovascular disease and other
chronic conditions through behavioral
medicine delivered digitally. Now
that the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention (CDC) has recognized
digital programs to combat diabetes,
and intensive behavioral counseling
for patients at risk for heart disease
will soon be a required preventive
benefit for commercial health plans,
ACA provisions are helping to fuel the
company’s growth even further.
In addition to new entities, giants from
other industries—Apple and Samsung,
for example—are applying decades
of retail and financial experience to
elbow into the health space. Products
and services aimed at improving
transparency, wellness and quality
come in the form of mobile apps, data
analytics and do-it-yourself devices.
Sparking more than just new
products, innovation is also igniting
partnerships among industry
incumbents. Aetna, for example,
has teamed up with Inova to create
Innovation Health, pairing two
historically unlikely candidates in
the pursuit of a consumer-centric,
tech-supported business model for the
21st century.
Expanding market for upstarts.
Supplementing investments from
the federal government through the
ACA and, notably, its predecessor
the Health Information Technology
for Economic and Clinical Health
(HITECH) Act, digital health venture
funding hit a record-breaking high
in 2014, surpassing the $4 billion
mark.22
Technology is seen as critical
to delivering on a key aspect of reform:
high quality at low cost.
But technology is not the only dynamic
force. From growth in retail clinics to
heightened data analytics, investors
continue to explore the expanding
healthcare market.
New sources of venture capital are
emerging as well. In September 2014,
the University of California’s Board
“Regardless of if you’re a health plan, provider
or employer, there has been a curiosity to look at
innovative solutions because of the ACA.”
—Sean Duffy, CEO Omada Health
Trend
3

A new cottage industry arises.
More than 90 new health companies
created since 2010.
Process
improvement
Streamline operations to enhance efﬁciency and
patient experience
Cureatr
Dabo Health
Epion Health
Medisas
Examples include:
14 companies
Telehealth
Connecting patients and clinicians via technology
Alii Healthcare
CellScope
MediSafe
Vivre Health
Examples include:
29 companies
9 companies
Health &
wellness beneﬁts
Offer insurance services or individual wellness incentives
Examples include: AchieveMint
EveryMove
Jiff
Oscar
7 companies
Model
innovation
Help develop new care delivery and payment models
Aledade
Alignment Healthcare
Iora Health
Remedy Partners
Examples include:
9 companiesConnector
Match patients and physicians with treatment and
support networks
Aidin
Doximity
Grand Rounds
Smart Patients
Examples include:
7 companiesAnalytics
Collect and process patient health data
Artemis
Flatiron Health
Human API
Vheda Health
Examples include:
15 companies
Consumer
education
Increase transparency to inform health-related
decision making
Azumio
Doctible
HealthSparq
Zest Health
Examples include:
Source: PwC’s Health Research Institute Analysis
of Regents approved the creation of
a $250 million venture-capital fund
that will target work performed
at the university’s 10 campuses,
five medical centers and three
national laboratories.23
Outlook: With the market still in flux,
opportunities for disruption abound.
According to HRI calculations the
wellness industry in 2012 represented
an additional $267 billion health-
related market, with no signs of
retreat.24
Last year, Castlight Health’s
IPO was valued at over $3 billion,
even with little revenue and losses on
the books in 2013.25
However, tepid
stock prices post IPO keep investors
cautiously optimistic. Though many
new entrants will stumble—and at
least one new insurance co-operative
already has failed—one thing is for
certain: shifting frameworks in a
consumer-centric sector will continue
to inspire disruptive new thinking.

Redefining physician-
patient interaction.
New health players seek to deliver
the same convenience and do-it-
yourself flexibility that consumers
demand when banking online or
booking travel. A 2013 HRI consumer
survey shows that middle-aged
consumers, and those for whom
healthcare expenses had put a strain
on finances, are most amenable to
exploring convenient alternatives.26
This will force traditional physician
offices to rethink how they operate.
Leveraging basic mobile technology, a
doctor’s visit is no more than a mouse
click away.
Outlook: As new entrants continue
to shape consumer expectations,
traditional providers will need to
keep pace, offering flexible hours
and exploring telehealth options.
Physicians will have to consider
replicating how new entrants are
engaging with consumers. Enter the
likes of One Medical or Doctor on
Demand, leading the way in redefining
the physician-patient interaction.
“The ACA has created
massive interest in
healthcare investing.”
—Derek Newell, CEO Jiff
ACA spurs new twists.
Healthcare players explore new business strategies post-ACA.
Providers become insurers
Example: North-Shore LIJ starts its own health plan.
Example: MedStar and CVS team-up to improve
care coordination.
Health players collaborate
Example: Walmart sells ACA health insurance
exchange products.
New players enter health fray
Source: PwC’s Health Research Institute Analysis
Expect the emergence of new
technologies to enhance these remote
interactions, and more physicians in
the mix.
Emerging focus on partnerships.
Not all new entrants are outsiders:
established providers are now
branching out. Offering a new twist
on a trusted brand can strike the right
balance between innovation and
loyalty, resulting in market disruption
from an unlikely contender. Early
adopter MedStar, for example, has
partnered with CVS’s MinuteClinic
to improve coordination across the
care continuum.27
Patients can take
advantage of the convenience of retail
clinical services with the comfort of
knowing that information will be
shared between CVS’ clinicians and
their MedStar physician.
Similarly, Walgreens is teaming
with both start-up Theranos 28
and
telehealth leader MDLIVE 29
giving
customers access to convenient,
affordable care such as lab tests
while they shop. With an eye toward
improved patient monitoring,
medication adherence and cost
control, these partnerships offer an
opportunity for greater coordination
along the continuum of care.
Outlook: Companies with good
brand, consumer identification and
user friendly digital platforms will
find willing partners in high-quality
medical experts. Rather than trying to
do it all, health businesses should hone
in on their core operations and use
outside expertise to fill in the gaps.
Hospitals that were once seen as
competitors may make good partners,
especially as care shifts from the
inpatient setting to clinics, the
community and ultimately, home.
Partnerships will continue to be
forged, and care delivery models that
bend the cost curve while catering to
consumer needs will prevail.

Health Insurance:
From wholesale to retail
By establishing health insurance
marketplaces and mandating that
insurers must sell coverage to all
people with no price variation based
on health status, the ACA has oiled
the emergence of retail-style health
insurance. Public exchanges—coupled
with the law’s “Cadillac” excise tax
looming in 2018—have sparked a
second look at private exchanges by
employers seeking cost-effectiveness,
budget certainty and fewer
administrative hassles.
With the rise of exchanges, insurers
must continue to refine how they
deliver this retail experience. The ACA
marketplaces have demonstrated that
simply providing choice is not enough.
HRI’s 2014 Top Issues Consumer
Survey found that most consumers
who purchase individual policies
do not ultimately understand their
health benefits.30
Insurers, as part
of their retail strategies, will need
to invest resources into educating
consumers about the complex world of
retail health.
ACA created public exchanges.
The ACA required the development
of a health insurance marketplace,
mandated that insurers sell coverage
to all, removed health status as a
pricing component and made subsidies
available to those with financial need.
Although punctuated with a
problematic launch in 2013 and
ongoing glitches, the technology
platforms that support the ACA’s
public exchanges allow, and even
encourage, individuals to shop around,
comparing coverage options based
on price and benefits. In doing so,
the exchanges are helping to create
a market of active consumers. The
second year of open enrollment closed
with about 11.7 million people signing
up for coverage on the state and
federal marketplaces.31
Outlook: With average annual
enrollment through the exchanges
expected to ultimately reach about
22 million,32
the health insurance
industry faces tremendous growth
potential. UnitedHealth Group
recently announced that it would
add hundreds of thousands of new
customers because of the ACA—both
through the exchanges and Medicaid
expansion—helping to drive share
prices to record highs.33
As evidenced
by the increase in issuer participation
in 2015, insurers are increasingly
recognizing public exchanges as a
robust market and viable model for
selling health insurance.
Public exchanges breathe life
into private options.
Private exchanges existed prior to the
passage of the ACA but were primarily
limited to the individual and small
group markets. The rise of the public
exchanges—while partially displacing
private exchanges in the individual
market—has broadened awareness
of the exchange concept and its
viability to employers and the large
group market.
“We’re preparing our company for a future
where we’re going to have a much more consumer-
oriented business. [And Aetna wants] a better and
more informed work force.”
—Aetna Chief Executive Mark T. Bertolini34
Trend
4

2.0 million
automatically
re-enrolled
1.2 million returned and
actively selected new plan
1.0 million returned and
actively selected same plan
2014
2015
8.8
million
total*
5.5
million
total
4.7 million
new consumers
ACA federal exchange enrollment.
Creating a market of active consumers.
*Numbers may not add due to rounding.
Sources: HHS ASPE, Addendum to the Health Insurance
Marketplace Summary Enrollment Report for the Initial
Annual Open Enrollment Period, May 1, 2014. HHS ASPE,
Health Insurance Marketplaces 2015 Open Enrollment
Period: March Enrollment Report, March 10, 2015.
Employer-based coverage remains the
core of the US insurance market, but
the business model is changing rapidly
as employers explore alternatives—
including private exchanges—to more
cost-effectively deliver benefits that
improve consumerism and enhance
choice for workers.
According to PwC’s 2014 Employer
Touchstone Survey, 60% of employers
expect the ACA’s “Cadillac” tax—
which requires employers to pay 40%
of an employee’s total health insurance
costs above $10,200 for individual
plans and $27,500 for family plans—to
have an impact on their company.35
Some employers see moving
employees to private exchanges with
defined contributions as a viable
alternative. In the same survey, 32% of
employers acknowledged that they are
considering moving their employees
to a private exchange in the next
three years.36
Outlook: Moving forward, employers
will need to conduct cost-benefit
analyses to determine if a private
exchange best suits their needs. Even
those that choose not to pursue a
private exchange will begin adopting a
more employee-centric and integrated
benefits design, increasing employee
choice and engagement in making
benefit selections.
For insurers, the shift from the
business-to-business (B2B) model of
the 20th century toward a post-ACA
business-to-consumer (B2C) model
is already underway. Insurers will
continue to zero in on this notion of
consumer directed health, as plans
focus on the consumer experience
across all lines of business and not just
the individual market. Insurers should
tap into their reams of data, pivoting
systems to better anticipate consumer
needs and manage their choices in
order to foster greater consumer
engagement from shopping for a plan
to seeking care.
According to Jiff CEO Derek Jewell, the ACA’s
“regulatory barriers” provide helpful parameters
to employers as they design benefits packages and
give them wide latitude to offer health incentives
to employees. For companies like his, “explicitly
carving out incentives to move the needle is the
foundation of what [they] do.”
In 2015, about 11.7 million
people enrolled in health
insurance coverage through
ACA marketplaces. Of the
8.8 million people who signed
up on the federal exchange
specifically, 2.2 million
had returned from 2014 to
actively shop around for this
year’s health plan.

States:
Reform’s pivotal stage
While the ACA broadens the federal
government’s role and financial
responsibility in healthcare, it also
confers considerable authority to
states for its implementation. As such,
states have emerged as key players
in the roll-out of health reform. They
have gotten to decide if and how they
expand their Medicaid programs and
to what extent they would have a
hand in the administration of health
insurance exchanges. In the last five
years, some states have elected to
take more active roles in the law’s
administration; other states, less
active roles.
States have taken advantage of the
latitude the law and US Supreme
Court provided, reflecting differences
in philosophy about the best way
to expand coverage, or whether
to participate in the expansion of
coverage. Variations in risk tolerance
and willingness to adapt systems
have driven a multiplicity of health
insurance marketplace designs and
Medicaid expansion models. As a
result, the law’s implementation has
led to highly diverse, geographically
dependent health reform experiences.
For health plans specifically, operating
in multiple states means they must
assess each one individually.
This summer, the US Supreme Court
will deliver its verdict on King v.
Burwell, a case which questions
the legality of ACA subsidies made
available on the federal marketplace.
Depending on the Court’s decision,
these subsidies—which have been
granted to more than 80% of
the people enrolled in the plans
offered on Healthcare.gov—could
be eliminated.37
With such legal challenges looming—
and the opportunity to waive
significant portions of the ACA
through state innovation waivers
starting in 2017—states stand to take
on even more responsibility, catalyzing
further divergence in implementation
and implications.
To expand or not to expand?
That is the question states face with
their Medicaid programs. And, if the
answer is yes, then how?
While the ACA extended Medicaid
benefits to every American earning
less than 138% of the federal poverty
level ($16,105 for an individual),
the US Supreme Court made this
expansion optional in June 2012.
Consequently, expansion has been
piecemeal across the country, with
about half of states choosing to
participate; half not. In addition,
because of the flexibility granted
under both the ACA and pre-existing
Medicaid law, there is significant
variation in how states choose
to expand.
Some states—such as California—
simply expanded their existing
Medicaid programs. Others—such
as Arkansas and Indiana—pursued
alternative models that include
Trend
5
Variation in how states have implemented
the ACA has led to highly diverse, geographically
dependent health reform experiences.

client cost-sharing through co-pays
and deductibles. In Indiana, those
earning above the federal poverty
level can be temporarily locked out
of the program if they fail to pay
monthly contributions.
In those states that have opted to
pursue it, Medicaid expansion has
been a boon for health systems,
which have seen a dramatic reduction
in uncompensated care. Between
October 2013—when the ACA health
insurance exchanges first opened
for business—and December 2014,
enrollment in Medicaid and its
children’s health component grew by
27% compared to average monthly
enrollment prior to the ACA changes
in expansion states, dwarfing the 7%
growth observed in those states that
didn’t expand.38
According to HRI analysis, an increase
in Medicaid admissions in expansion
states was complemented by a decline
in uninsured and self-pay admissions
for the country’s three largest health
systems in the first half of 2014.39
In
the last quarter of the year, Dallas-
based Tenet Healthcare, which
operates hospitals in 5 states that have
expanded Medicaid, specifically saw a
63% decline in uninsured and charity
cases, and a 21% increase in Medicaid
admissions across those states.40
Outlook: With the option to expand
Medicaid still on the table, more states
may pursue alternative models. These
Medicaid “private option” models
will create a continuum between
Medicaid, the public exchanges and
the private market, reducing variation
and making benefit design as similar
as possible to that available through
employers. Providers, recognizing
the financial toll of treating
uninsured patients, will continue
to push for expanded coverage and
higher enrollment.
Marketplace management
decisions impact competition.
The ACA also gives states leeway in
how they manage their marketplaces.
Some states—such as Colorado—have
adopted an open marketplace model,
accepting any insurer that meets the
qualified health plan standard.
This gives consumers greater
decision-making responsibility and
leaves issuers susceptible to greater
market competition. Others—such as
California—act as “active purchasers,”
using market leverage and the tools
of managed competition to negotiate
product offerings. These states
selectively pick and choose which
insurers may participate, creating
competition in a different way.
States also exercise varying levels of
oversight in the review of premium
rate filings.41
HRI analysis indicates
that, in states where the insurance
department must approve rates
prior to implementation, insurers
saw a median drop of 2.9% between
proposed and final rate increases
for 2015. In states without this
authority—such as Arizona—the
median decrease was 1.3%. In
addition, the median rate increase
approved in states with more authority
(6.0%) was lower than in states with
less oversight (6.6%).
Outlook: Looking ahead, insurers
trying to enter or expand their
presence in exchanges may face
Federal government
State government
Exchange
oversight
Marketplace
management
Medicaid
expansion
States have
emerged as
key players in
the roll-out of
health reform.

barriers to entry depending on the
rules of engagement set up by a state.
States are likely to continue to have a
major influence on the implementation
of the ACA specifically and how the
business of healthcare is conducted
more broadly.
Expanding the role they play in
the management of costs, states
are positioned to lead a proactive
movement in drug pricing as Medicaid
directors and state health plans seek
to address high drug costs. This
will challenge the pharmaceutical
industry’s old model of doing business.
In response, drug companies will need
to champion the notion of innovative
drug value, highlighting cost offsets
and the return on investment from
drug treatments that actually cure or
slow disease. Purchasers, including
states, must also broaden the lens on
the concept of value.
States—such as Arkansas, Ohio and
New York—have also begun to take
leadership in redesigning care models
and delivery, actively arranging for
insurers and providers to collaborate.
Facing higher-risk populations such
as dual-eligibles, they have become
hotbeds of innovation as they are
challenged to deliver better quality
care at lower cost.
State and federal exchange
involvement varies.
Today, 16 states and the District of
Columbia run their own exchanges.
However, three—New Mexico,
Nevada and Oregon—are considered
“federally-supported” state-based
exchanges because they rely
on the federal government’s IT
infrastructure: HealthCare.gov.
The remaining states are in the
federal marketplace, though some
have a “partnership” with the federal
government that permits them to
administer consumer assistance and
outreach functions. Others, such as
Kansas and Virginia, have received
approval to conduct plan management
activities, allowing them to maintain
maximum regulatory authority over
their insurance markets. Utah and
Mississippi, while relinquishing
control of their individual markets,
have opted to retain responsibility for
their small business exchanges.
Outlook: States that currently use
the federal marketplace may have
the opportunity to establish their
own exchanges in the event that
premium subsidies are abolished in
King v. Burwell. Some state insurance
commissioners are already exploring
the feasibility of doing so.42
While
some commissioners are optimistic,
others remain concerned about
their capacity to meet technological
requirements and challenges posed by
state legislatures.
For a look at state ACA
participation and 2015
premium rates, check out
HRI’s interactive map here.

The next five years
Strategies in the post-ACA world
Much like the last five, the ACA will
continue to face political crosswinds.
However, in its brief history, the
health reform law has already had
a profound, and likely irreversible,
impact on the business of healthcare.
With federal dollars, new regulations
and the government’s role as a
purchaser, the ACA has catalyzed
fundamental shifts in an industry
historically slow to change.
Across the entire health sector,
executives recognize that yesterday’s
business models will not work in the
New Health Economy. As these five
key trends continue over the next five
years, industry leaders should:
States:
Work with states.
Engage states as they continue to shape the future landscape
and to assume an even bigger role in the management of
healthcare costs.
5
Risk shift:
Weigh the risks of taking on new
functions as business models change.
With reimbursement and competitive pressures, revisit strategies
to emphasize saving over spending and quality over quantity, to
serve more consumers effectively and demonstrate affordability.
1
Health insurance:
Target the consumer.
Pursue opportunities to enhance consumer choice and
engagement in selecting health benefits.
4
Primary care:
Watch closely as the reimbursement
pendulum swings.
Shifting from fee-for-service to accountable care, consider
ways to deliver quality care that satisfies the increased demand
generated by the newly insured.
2
New entrants:
Innovate to meet the demands of the
new healthcare consumer.
Rather than trying to do it all, businesses will need to identify
what they do best and then consider alternatives—such as
partnerships—to fill in the gaps.
3

Endnotes
1. PwC Health Research Institute, “New Health Economy,” April 2014. (http://www.pwc.com/us/en/health-industries/healthcare-new-entrants/assets/
pwc-hri-new-health-economy-essay-2.pdf)
2. US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, “Linking quality to payment,” Medicare.gov. (http://www.
medicare.gov/hospitalcompare/linking-quality-to-payment.html?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1)
3. US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, “Fact sheets: Better Care. Smarter Spending. Healthier
People: Paying Providers for Value, Not Volume,” January 26, 2015. (http://www.cms.gov/Newsroom/MediaReleaseDatabase/Fact-sheets/2015-Fact-
sheets-items/2015-01-26-3.html)
4. PwC Health Research Institute, “The FDA and industry: A recipe for collaborating in the New Health Economy,” January 2015. (http://pwchealth.
com/cgi-local/hregister.cgi/reg/pwc-hri-pharma-fda.pdf)
5. MD Anderson News Release, “MD Anderson, AstraZeneca enter collaboration to help improve patient outcomes in ovarian and gynecologic cancers,”
January 29, 2015. (http://www.mdanderson.org/newsroom/news-releases/2015/md-anderson-astrazeneca-collaberate-to-improve-patient-
outcomes-in-ovarian-and-gynecologic-cancers.html)
6. Health Care Transformation Task Force Press Release, “Leaders Forming New Health Care Transformation Task Force Commit to Putting
75% of Their Businesses in Value-based Arrangements by 2020,” January 28, 2015. (http://www.hcttf.org/releases/2015/1/28/
major-health-care-players-unite-to-accelerate-transformation-of-us-health-care-system)
7. Ridgely Ochs, “State OKs North Shore-LIJ to start selling health insurance,” Newsday. July 31, 2013. (https://www.northshorelij.com/about/news/
new-york-approves-north-shore-lij-insurance-license)
8. Minuteman Health Profile. (http://minutemanhealth.org/MinutemanHealth/media/MMH/Files/Minuteman-Press-Kit-10-11-2013.pdf)
9. Congressional Budget Office, “Updated Budget Projections: 2015 to 2025,” March 2015. (https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/
attachments/49973-Updated_Budget_Projections.pdf)
10. US Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, “Profile of Affordable Care Act Coverage
Expansion Enrollment for Medicaid/CHIP and the Health Insurance Marketplace 10-1-2013 to 3-31-2014,” April 2014. (http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/
reports/2014/MarketPlaceEnrollment/Apr2014/pdf/national.pdf)
11. US Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, “The Affordable Care Act and Health Centers.” (http://
bphc.hrsa.gov/about/healthcenterfactsheet.pdf )
12. US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation, “Report to
Congress,” December 2014. (http://innovation.cms.gov/Files/reports/RTC-12-2014.pdf )
13. US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, “ACOs Moving Ahead,” The CMS Blog. December 22, 2014.
(http://blog.cms.gov/2014/12/22/acos-moving-ahead/)
14. US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, “Next Generation ACO Model.” (http://innovation.cms.
gov/initiatives/Next-Generation-ACO-Model/)
15. US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, “Fact sheets: Better Care. Smarter Spending. Healthier
People: Paying Providers for Value, Not Volume,” January 26, 2015. (http://www.cms.gov/Newsroom/MediaReleaseDatabase/Fact-sheets/2015-Fact-
sheets-items/2015-01-26-3.html)
16. US Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, “The Affordable Care Act and Health Centers.” (http://
bphc.hrsa.gov/about/healthcenterfactsheet.pdf)
17. US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation, “Report to
Congress,” December 2014. (http://innovation.cms.gov/Files/reports/RTC-12-2014.pdf )
18. Medicaid and CHIP Payment Access Commission. 2014. Transcript of a public meeting of the Medicaid and CHIP Payment Access Commission,
Washington, DC, October 30-31. (http://www.macpac.gov/home/meetings)
19. Karen Davis, Melinda Abrams, and Kristof Stremikis, “How the Affordable Care Act Will Strengthen the Nation’s Primary Care Foundation,” Journal of
General Internal Medicine. 26(10): 1201-1203. October 2011. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3181291/)
20. Ibid.

21. Telecommunications Services Industry Profile, Yahoo Finance. (http://biz.yahoo.com/ic/42.html)
22. Rock Health, “Digital Health Funding Year in Review 2014,” January 1, 2015. (http://rockhealth.com/resources/rock-reports/)
23. UC Office of the President, “University of California proposes creation of new venture fund to invest in UC innovation,” September 15, 2014. (http://
www.universityofcalifornia.edu/press-room/university-california-proposes-creation-new-venture-fund-invest-uc-innovation)
24. PwC Health Research Institute, “Healthcare’s new entrants: Who will be the industry’s Amazon.com?” April 2014. (http://www.pwc.com/us/en/
health-industries/healthcare-new-entrants/assets/pwc-hri-new-entrants.pdf)
25. Zina Moukheiber, “Health IT Soars With Castlight Health IPO,” Forbes.com, March 14, 2014. (http://www.forbes.com/sites/
zinamoukheiber/2014/03/14/health-it-soars-with-castlight-health-ipo/)
26. PwC Health Research Institute, “Healthcare’s new entrants: Who will be the industry’s Amazon.com?” April 2014. (http://www.pwc.com/us/en/
health-industries/healthcare-new-entrants/assets/pwc-hri-new-entrants.pdf)
27. CVS Health Press Release, “CVS Caremark Announces New Clinical Affiliation with MedStar Health,” PRNewswire. August 27, 2014. (http://www.
cvshealth.com/newsroom/press-releases/cvspharmacy-cvsminuteclinic/cvs-caremark-announces-new-clinical-affiliation)
28. Theranos Press Releases and Statements, “Theranos Selects Walgreens as a Long-Term Partner Through Which to Offer Its New Clinical Laboratory
Service.” (https://www.theranos.com/#!/news/theranos-selects-walgreens-as-a-long-term-partner)
29. MDLIVE Press Releases, “Walgreens Expands Telehealth Platform to Offer Virtual Doctor Visits Through MDLIVE via Walgreens Mobile App,”
December 8, 2014. (https://www.mdlive.com/news/press_12082014.html)
30. PwC Health Research Institute, “Top health industry issues of 2015: Outlines of a market emerge,” December 2014. (http://www.pwc.com/us/en/
health-industries/top-health-industry-issues/newly-insured.jhtml)
31. US Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, “Health Insurance Marketplaces 2015
Open Enrollment Period: March Enrollment Report,” March 10, 2015. (http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/2015/MarketPlaceEnrollment/Mar2015/
ib_2015mar_enrollment.pdf)
32. Congressional Budget Office, “Updated Budget Projections: 2015 to 2025,” March 2015. (https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/
attachments/49973-Updated_Budget_Projections.pdf)
33. UnitedHealth Group News Release, “UnitedHealth Group Reports 2014 Results, Highlighted by Strength in Growth Markets,” January 21, 2015.
(http://www.unitedhealthgroup.com/~/media/UHG/PDF/2014/UNH-Q4-2014-Release.ashx)
34. Anna Wilde Matthews and Theo Francis, “Aetna Sets Wage Floor: $16 an Hour,” The Wall Street Journal. January 12, 2015. (http://www.wsj.com/
articles/aetna-to-boost-incomes-of-lowest-paid-workers-1421105445)
35. PwC, “Health and Well-being Touchstone Survey,” June 2014. (http://www.pwc.com/en_US/us/hr-management/publications/assets/
pwc-touchstone-survey-results-june-2014.pdf)
36. Ibid.
37. US Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, “Addendum to the Health Insurance
Marketplace Summary Enrollment Report for the Initial Annual Open Enrollment Period,” May 1, 2014. (http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/2014/
MarketPlaceEnrollment/Apr2014/ib_2014Apr_enrollAddendum.pdf)
38. US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, “Medicaid & CHIP: December 2014 Monthly Applications,
Eligibility Determinations and Enrollment Report,” February 23, 2015. (http://medicaid.gov/medicaid-chip-program-information/program-
information/downloads/december-2014-enrollment-report.pdf)
39. PwC Health Research Institute, “Medicaid 2.0 Health system haves and have nots,” September 2014. (http://www.pwc.com/us/en/health-industries/
health-research-institute/assets/pdf/pwc-hri-aca-medicaid-expansion.pdf)
40. Angela Chen, “Tenet Upbeat on 2014 Results,” The Wall Street Journal. January 12, 2015. (http://www.wsj.com/articles/
tenet-upbeat-on-2014-results-1421072166)
41. PwC Health Research Institute, “Regulatory Spotlight: States use rate approval authority to manage individual health insurance premium prices for
2015,” January 2015. (http://www.pwc.com/us/en/health-industries/health-research-institute/assets/pwc-rate-review-spotlight-01-23.pdf)
42. Rachana Pradhan, “States regulators raise exchange issue with Tavenner,” PoliticoPro. November 19, 2014. (https://www.politicopro.com/story/
healthcare/?id=41021)

Health Research
Institute
Kelly Barnes
Partner
Health Industries Leader
kelly.a.barnes@us.pwc.com
(214) 754-5172
Ceci Connolly
HRI Managing Director
ceci.connolly@us.pwc.com
(202) 312-7910
Trine Tsouderos
Director
trine.k.tsouderos@us.pwc.com
(312) 298-3038
Ben Comer
Senior Manager
benjamin.comer@us.pwc.com
(919) 791-4139
Sarah Haflett
Senior Manager
sarah.e.haflett@us.pwc.com
(267) 330-1654
Marianne DeWitt
Research Analyst
marianne.t.dewitt@us.pwc.com
(410) 659-3453
HRI Regulatory Center
Benjamin Isgur
Director
benjamin.isgur@us.pwc.com
(214) 754-5091
Bobby Clark
Senior Manager
robert.j.clark@us.pwc.com
(202) 312-7947
Matthew DoBias
Senior Manager
matthew.r.dobias@us.pwc.com
(202) 312-7946
Laura McLaughlin
Research Analyst
laura.r.mclaughlin@us.pwc.com
(703) 918-6625
HRI Report Advisory Team
Jaime Estupinan, Partner
Todd Evans, Director
Sandra Hunt, Principal
Gary Jacobs, Managing Director
Ashish Kaura, Partner
Jack Rodgers, Managing Director
Michael Thompson, Principal
Robert Valletta, Partner
Additional contributors
Jamay Beebe
Derek Gaasch
Kulleni Gebreyes
Barbara Gniewek
Jason Heider
Susan Kellam
Bob Kim
Karen Montgomery
Ross Stromberg
Carol Wells
About the PwC Health
Research Institute
PwC’s Health Research Institute (HRI) provides new intelligence,
perspectives, and analysis on trends affecting all health related industries.
The Health Research Institute helps executive decision makers navigate
change through primary research and collaborative exchange. Our views
are shaped by a network of professionals with executive and day-to-day
experience in the health industry. HRI research is independent and not
sponsored by businesses, government or other institutions.
About the PwC network
PwC helps organizations and individuals create the value they’re looking for. We’re a network of firms in 158 countries
with more than 180,000 people who are committed to delivering quality in assurance, tax and advisory services. Tell us
what matters to you and find out more by visiting us at www.pwc.com. PwC refers to the PwC network and/or one or more
of its member firms, each of which is a separate legal entity. Please see www.pwc.com/structure for further details.
Acknowledgments
Donald (Trey) Cole, III, MD
Austin Regional Clinic
Sean Duffy
Omada Health
Derek Newell
Jiff

© 2015 PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership. All rights reserved. PwC refers to the US member firm, and may sometimes refer to the PwC network. Each member
firm is a separate legal entity. Please see www.pwc.com/structure for further details. This content is for general information purposes only, and should not be used as a substitute for consultation with
professional advisors. MW-15-1326.km.
www.pwc.com
www.pwc.com/us/healthindustries
www.pwc.com/hri
twitter.com/PwCHealth
To have a deeper conversation
about how this subject may affect
your business, please contact:
Kelly Barnes
Partner
Health Industries Leader
kelly.a.barnes@us.pwc.com
(214) 754-5172
Sandra Hunt
Principal
sandra.s.hunt@us.pwc.com
(415) 498-5365
Ceci Connolly
HRI Managing Director
ceci.connolly@us.pwc.com
(202) 312-7910

Healthcare reform: Five trends to watch as the Affordable Care Act turns five

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to Healthcare reform: Five trends to watch as the Affordable Care Act turns five

More from PwC

Recently uploaded

Healthcare reform: Five trends to watch as the Affordable Care Act turns five