While the Senate GOP’s plan to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has been denounced as potentially devastating to the poor, the sick, women, people of color, children, and those with pre-existing conditions, a new analysis published Monday finds that no matter what happens, the CEOs of large healthcare companies are likely to continue living lavishly.
Since the Affordable Care Act (ACA) passed in 2010, the “CEOs of 70 of the largest U.S. healthcare companies cumulatively have earned $9.8 billion,” according to a report by Axios’s Bob Herman.
Herman goes on to add that the CEOs’ earnings “far outstrip[ped] the wage growth of nearly all Americans.”
“The richest year [for healthcare CEOs] was 2015, when 70 healthcare CEOs collectively made $2 billion,” Herman notes. “That was an average of about $28.5 million per CEO and a median of about $17.3 million per CEO. The median household income in 2015 was $56,515, which the average healthcare CEO made in less than a day.”
John Martin, former CEO of the pharma giant Gilead Sciences, topped Axios’s list: he pulled in $863 million in the “ACA era.”
CEOs of 70 of the largest US health care companies have earned $9.8 billion in the seven years since ACA was passed https://t.co/1VBAavfiWZ pic.twitter.com/aeXbUmtW4j
— Axios (@axios) July 24, 2017
Despite President Donald Trump’s repeated insistence that Obamacare has been a “nightmare” and that the entire system is collapsing, Herman observes, “The ACA has not hurt the healthcare industry. Stock prices have boomed, and CEOs took home nearly 11 percent more money on average every year since 2010.” And the Senate GOP’s alternative, which Trump has enthusiastically endorsed, would likely be a further boon to industry executives, who would stand to benefit from the bill’s massive tax cuts for the wealthy.
Axios’s analysis focused on 70 of the largest publicly traded healthcare companies — including some of the largest insurance and pharmaceutical companies — in the United States.
Perhaps the most consequential component of healthcare CEO pay, Herman observes, is the fact that “a gigantic portion of what CEOs make comes in the form of vested stock, and those incentives drive their decision-making.”
This means that CEOs are incentivized not to take actions that would benefit the healthcare system overall, but rather to “inflate stock prices” using methods “such as repurchasing shares or issuing dividends to shareholders.”
Such moves lead to higher salaries for CEOs, but not to widely shared benefits.
“Stock-heavy pay,” Herman concludes, “drives CEOs to do the exact opposite of their buzzword-laden goals of creating a ‘patient-centered’ health system that focuses on ‘value.'”
Some commentators portrayed the analysis as both indicative of the fundamental injustice at the heart of the for-profit insurance model and proof of the need for Medicare for All.
The central healthcare initiative of the Dem Party is a policy that effectively subsidizes the pay of these execs https://t.co/briYBbU5EG
— David Sirota (@davidsirota) July 24, 2017
But how could we possibly afford a Medicare for all system? https://t.co/jynH0yollk pic.twitter.com/rIY8mRSlAa
— Billy Gendell (@billygendell) July 24, 2017
This is obscene. https://t.co/6jhmSs5eG2 pic.twitter.com/q2y37631EW
— Michael Kelly (@MichaelEdKelly) July 24, 2017
Time for single payer. https://t.co/RtvWwhYCh5
— Suzanne C-J (@barefootswan) July 24, 2017
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today during our fundraiser. We have 48 hours to add 242 new monthly donors. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.