August 2024, From the Field -
The 2024 U.S. presidential election campaign has been noteworthy for the lack of big‑ticket issues or policies from either leading candidate. Health care, for example, historically has been one of the hottest of all political potatoes during election years, given the scope for impactful change, but it has featured much less prominently in either candidate’s campaigning in this election cycle. This low‑key focus has been less disruptive for the health care sector than in recent election year campaigns, a fact duly reflected on the markets, with the sector posting positive returns in 2024 to date, albeit trailing the broader equity market’s rally.
"Health care, for example, historically has been one of the hottest of all political potatoes during election years…."
As of May 15, 2024. Annual total returns.
Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future performance.
Index performance is for illustrative purposes only and is not indicative of any specific investment. Investors cannot invest directly in an index.
1 Year to date as of May 15, 2024.
Source: Refinitiv Eikon. © 2024 Refinitiv. All rights reserved. Analysis by T. Rowe Price.
By way of comparison, recent election years show the health care sector performing inconsistently, delivering an array of negative and positive annual returns in different election years (Fig. 1). This erratic track record has much to do with how central a topic health care has been in each election campaign and how significant the proposed changes to the U.S. health care system have been in the lead‑up to each election. One only needs to look back to the 2019–2020 campaign trail, when Democrat candidates proposed wholesale change in the form of “Medicare for All,” a single‑payer health system, to understand the pivotal role that health care can play in an election campaign.
With health care not being central to either candidate’s campaign talking points in 2024, the biggest impact on the sector is likely to come from which candidate ultimately wins and what this might mean for key health care issues. In this paper, we delve deeper into some of these contentious health care areas and consider the potential impacts depending upon who is elected come November.
One of the most divisive—and decisive—areas of U.S. health care is the managed care industry, where ideology sees each candidate diametrically opposed in their view of, and approach to, providing health care to the American population.
"One of the most divisive—and decisive—areas of U.S. health care is the managed care industry.…"
Drilling down into the broad managed care landscape, we see four key topics that are likely to be central areas of focus for both candidates but that could see very different impacts, depending on who is ultimately elected the next U.S. president. We consider each of these below, from both sides of the political aisle.
If Kamala Harris is elected: |
|
1. The Affordable Care Act |
During his term of office, President Biden went to great lengths to strengthen the Affordable Care Act (ACA)—also known as Obamacare—and expand affordable health care coverage to more Americans. President Biden meaningfully strengthened the ACA exchanges, which allow individuals to shop for subsidized health insurance plans, both through the introduction of enhanced subsidies in 2021, and increasing the income levels eligible for subsidy. An increase in marketing spending also aided ACA exchange awareness. During the most recent 2024 enrollment period, some 21 million Americans signed up for health insurance coverage through ACA exchanges—the highest‑ever total—and a massive increase from 11.4 million members in 2020.[1] With the expanded subsidies set to sunset in 2025, Kamala Harris will be keen to try and make these subsidies permanent, should she win the presidency in November. The main beneficiaries of an extension of the subsidies and continued growth in the ACA exchange enrollment will be managed care companies with sizable exchange businesses, along with providers who have seen incremental volume growth and improved payer mix associated with the increasing exchange membership. |
2. Medicare |
Under a Kamala Harris administration, Medicare—the government‑funded health plan primarily for older Americans—is likely to see a continuation of the status quo. While not expected at the time of the 2020 election, President Biden and the Democratic administrators at Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, which sets Medicare policy and rates, put forth policies that have ultimately proved much more onerous than expected for the Medicare Advantage (MA) industry. Many of the adjustments made to the Medicare program have created new headwinds to profitability for Medicare plans. These have included meaningful changes to the “risk model,” which MA plans use to determine individual beneficiary payment rates, and much more modest Medicare Advantage rate updates than the industry received during the Trump administration. While the election of Kamala Harris should be a continuation of the status quo, the last two rate‑setting cycles have created challenges for the MA industry, and as such, we believe the industry would welcome a change in administration. |
3. Hospitals and health services |
U.S. hospitals have been meaningful beneficiaries of the expanded ACA subsidies introduced under the Biden administration, driving increased patient volumes coming from newly insured ACA enrollees. Since commercial insurance typically reimburses hospitals at higher rates than government programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, and most certainly relative to uninsured patients, the growth in ACA‑insured patients in hospitals has also contributed to higher profit margins for hospitals. A likely continuation of the ACA subsidies under a new Harris administration would see this trend continue. Less positively, during his time in office President Biden attempted to control consolidation in the hospital subsector, including banning several planned mergers. While hospital mergers are ideally supposed to create cost efficiencies among often struggling hospitals, the creation of huge conglomerates and hospital networks has driven up U.S. medical costs, with some boasting near‑monopoly pricing power. In the absence of any (publicly‑stated) differing views from Kamala Harris, it is reasonable to expect this anti‑consolidation stance will continue—at least in the near term—should she be elected. |
4. Drug pricing |
The main uncertainty in relation to drug pricing revolves around legislation introduced under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) giving Medicare (under Part D of the program, which covers drug prescriptions and subsidies available to plan members) the power for the first time to negotiate drug prices with manufacturers. The negotiations began in August 2023, with 10 drugs selected, and older Americans are already seeing lower out‑of‑pocket costs. By the time the redesign of Part D is fully implemented in late 2025, it is expected that pharmaceutical companies will be picking up a considerably larger portion of U.S. prescription drug costs than has previously been the case. If elected, Kamala Harris would likely continue to push through measures introduced under the IRA, potentially expanding the number of drugs eligible for price negotiation. It is also worth noting that, in December 2023, the Biden administration announced new plans to boost competition in the pharmaceutical sector, while ensuring lower prescription drug costs. |
[1] KFF—independent provider of U.S. health policy polling and research. As of January 24, 2024.
If Donald Trump is elected: |
|
1. The Affordable Care Act |
Former President Trump has resumed his criticism of the ACA this campaign, and vowed to repeal and replace the legislation if he is reelected. While a full repeal and replace is highly unlikely, having failed during President Trump’s prior term, if reelected, President Trump could embark on efforts to weaken key provisions of the ACA. One key element of the ACA that a Trump victory could impact would be the expanded ACA subsidies that are set to expire at the end of 2025 and would require legislative action to be extended. Other levers available to President Trump, if elected, would be to scale back on ACA marketing investments and, on the Medicaid side, increasing the power of states to restrict eligibility to Medicaid via work requirements and other measures. |
2. Medicare |
A reelection of former President Trump would likely be more positive for the MA program, as his actions in his first presidential term served to strengthen funding for MA and increase the penetration relative to traditional fee‑for‑service Medicare. While a Trump reelection would be a “net win” for the Medicare plans, it is not known if President Trump would be as supportive of MA in a second term as he was in his first due to increasing rhetoric in Washington on both sides of the political aisle around overpayments to Medicare Advantage plans relative to fee for service. |
3. Hospitals and health services |
There is concern among investors in hospitals that a Trump administration is unlikely to extend the expanded ACA subsidies once they expire in 2025. These subsidies have driven a sharp increase in ACA enrollment, which has led to an increase in hospital admissions and provided a boost to hospital profitability in recent years. That said, there is one significant consideration that may give former President Trump reason for pause, namely the fact that the constituents in the key Republican states of Texas and Florida have been huge beneficiaries of the expanded ACA subsidies with ACA enrollment up 120% in Florida and 210% in Texas since 2020. The Trump administration would have to consider both the impact on constituents (voters) in these states, with 4.6 million individuals gaining coverage since 2020 in these two states, as well as the locally important hospital industry. The publicly traded for‑profit hospital companies are highly exposed to Texas and Florida, where the most growth in ACA exchange enrollment has been seen. State hospitals, which are also large employers in their local markets; state governments; and, importantly, local voters, have all benefited to varying degrees. So, cutting off the current expanded ACA subsidies completely in 2025 may be easier said than done. |
4. Drug pricing |
Drug pricing has not featured as prominently as it has in previous election campaigns; however, the high cost of prescription medicine remains an important issue on both sides of the political spectrum. Both candidates have voiced a desire to rein in health care inflation and reduce drug prices, albeit via different means. During his time in office, President Trump floated the idea of implementing a “Favored Nation Model,” whereby Medicare Part B prescription drug prices would be pegged to the lowest price paid by other developed nations. While the proposal was ultimately blocked, it highlights a clear commitment to act on what is a key issue for American voters. Whether or not a new Trump administration would continue with the price negotiation powers granted to Medicare under the IRA remains to be seen. To date, President Trump has said little on this, nor has he proposed any alternative policies aimed at reducing drug prices. Suffice it to say that, previously, President Trump has not been a particular friend to “big pharma,” so a return to office is unlikely to be more favorable than a Harris administration for the sector, and possibly much less so. |
Whoever ultimately is elected the next U.S. president in November—be it Harris or Trump—we would expect health care spending to continue to rise. Even though both candidates have voiced a desire to bring down medical inflation, and specifically to rein in high drug prices, total spending will continue to be driven higher by patient demand, an aging population, and the cost of medical services and innovation. Our expectation, should Kamala Harris win, is for total health care expenditure to increase, with public spending outpacing private. An early budgetary port of call for a new Harris administration is likely to be an extension to the expanded ACA subsidies. In contrast, if a Trump administration is reelected, we anticipate that he will move to reduce or eliminate the expanded federal subsidies, as well as reduce funding for several health programs, including Medicaid. While any attempts to overturn Obamacare fully are unlikely to succeed, weakening the ACA could ultimately see higher costs and reduced coverage for lower‑income Americans. In the event of a Trump victory, we would anticipate increased private health expenditure, at the expense of public programs, while pharmaceutical companies could also be better off, if a new Trump administration were to revoke Medicare’s power to negotiate drug prices directly.
T. Rowe Price cautions that economic estimates and forward‑looking statements are subject to numerous assumptions, risks, and uncertainties, which change over time. Actual outcomes could differ materially from those anticipated in estimates and forward‑looking statements, and future results could differ materially from historical performance. The information presented herein is shown for illustrative, informational purposes only. Any historical data used as a basis for analysis are based on information gathered by T. Rowe Price and from third‑party sources and have not been verified. Forecasts are based on subjective estimates about market environments that may never occur. Any forward‑looking statements speak only as of the date they are made. T. Rowe Price assumes no duty to, and does not undertake to, update forward‑looking statements.
Jill Jortner
Health Care Sector Investment Analyst, T. Rowe Price
Jill Jortner is an investment analyst covering stocks in the health care services area in the U.S. Equity Division. She is an Investment Advisory Committee member of the Health Sciences Equity, US Dividend Growth Equity, and US Small-Cap Growth Equity Strategies. Jill is a vice president of T. Rowe Price Group, Inc.
The next U.S. president faces a significant fiscal cliff in his first 12 months in office.
1KFF—independent provider of U.S. health policy polling and research. As of January 24, 2024.
Important Information
This material is provided for general and educational purposes only and is not intended to provide legal, tax, or investment advice. This material does not provide recommendations concerning investments, investment strategies, or account types; it is not individualized to the needs of any specific investor and not intended to suggest any particular investment action is appropriate for you, nor is it intended to serve as the primary basis for investment decision‑making.
Any tax‑related discussion contained in this material, including any attachments/links, is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding any tax penalties or (ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending to any other party any transaction or matter addressed herein. Please consult your independent legal counsel and/or tax professional regarding any legal or tax issues raised in this material.
The views contained herein are as of August 2024 and are subject to change without notice; these views may differ from those of other T. Rowe Price associates.
This information is not intended to reflect a current or past recommendation concerning investments, investment strategies, or account types, advice of any kind, or a solicitation of an offer to buy or sell any securities or investment services. The opinions and commentary provided do not take into account the investment objectives or financial situation of any particular investor or class of investor. Please consider your own circumstances before making an investment decision.
Information contained herein is based upon sources we consider to be reliable; we do not, however, guarantee its accuracy.
Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future performance. All investments are subject to market risk, including the possible loss of principal. Health sciences firms are often dependent on government funding and regulation and are vulnerable to product liability lawsuits and competition from low‑cost generic products. All charts and tables are shown for illustrative purposes only.
T. Rowe Price Investment Services, Inc., distributor, and T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc., investment adviser.
© 2024 T. Rowe Price. All Rights Reserved. T. ROWE PRICE, INVEST WITH CONFIDENCE, and the Bighorn Sheep design are, collectively and/or apart, trademarks of T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. RETIRE WITH CONFIDENCE is a trademark of T. Rowe Price Group, Inc.